give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge 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 Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance 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 some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse 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 suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain 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 own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own 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 asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal 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 the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and 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 Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers 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
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal 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 special duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sin 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 several 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 several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiastical because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spiritual because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity for such things only are properly spiritual 5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arm either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part an external and an internal this is derived from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Judge of that or that the Bishops were not but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick who would not submit to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power It was so in the case of Aetiu◠the Arian and Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperor For all that the Prefect did or the Emperor in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholicks but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie for all his confident appeal and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personal delinquencies * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges though Delegates of the Emperor Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose in his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offered at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers and jurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance in stead of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops The Militia and the Politia are thine but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse That he would be pleased to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by Gods law they did appertain upon which intimation given the Bishops convened in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A Divine right to decide the Article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperor it is not lawful for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperor to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Council These are two distinct powers one from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent
than they had a mind should be sav'd harmless Men would be safe alone or not at all supposing that their truth and good cause was warranty enough to preserve it self and they thought true it was indeed warranty enough against persecution if men had believed it to be truth but because we were fallen under the power of our worst enemies for Brethren turn'd enemies are ever the most implacable they looked upon us as men in misperswasion and error and therefore I was to defend our persons that whether our cause were right or wrong for it would be supposed wrong yet we might be permitted in liberty and impunity but then the Consequent would be this that if we when we were supposed to be in error were yet to be indemnified then others also whom we thought as ill of were to rejoyce in the same freedom because this equality is the great instrument of justice and if we would not do to others as we desir'd should be done to us we were no more to pretend Religion because we destroy the Law and the Prophets Of this some men were impatient and they would have all the world spare them and yet they would spare no body But because this is too unreasonable I need no excuse for my speaking to other purposes Others complain'd that it would have evil effects and all Heresies would enter at the gate of toleration and because I knew that they would croud and throng in as far as they could I placed such guards and restraints there as might keep out all unreasonable pretenders allowing none to enter here that speak against the Apostles Creed or weakened the hands of Government or were enemies to good life But the most complain'd that in my ways to perswade a toleration I helped some men too far and that I arm'd the Anabaptists with swords instead of shields with a power to offend us besides the proper defensatives of their own To this I shall need no reply but this I was to say what I could to make their persons safe by shewing how probably they were deceived and they who thought it too much had either too little confidence or too little knowledge of the goodness of their own cause and yet if any one made ill use of it it was more than I allowed or intended to him but so all kindness may be abused But if a Criminal be allowed Counsel he would be scorned if he should avow his Advocate as a real Patron of his crime when he only says what he can to alleviate the Sentence But wise men understand the thing and are satisfied but because all men are not of equal strength I did not only in a Discourse on purpose demonstrate the true doctrine in that question but I have now in this Edition of that Book answered all their pretensions not only fearing lest some be hurt with their offensive arms but lest others like Tarpeia the Roman Lady be oppressed with shields and be brought to think well of their Cause by my pleading for their persons And now My Lord I have done all that I can do or can be desired only I cannot repent me of speaking truth or doing charity but when the loyns of the Presbytery did lie heavy upon us and were like to crush us into flatness and death I ought not to have been reproached for standing under the ruine and endeavouring to defend my Brethren and if I had strain'd his arm whom I was lifting up from drowning he should have deplor'd his own necessity and not have reproved my charity if I say I had been too zealous to preserve them whom I ought to love so zealously But I have been told that my Discourse of Episcopacy relying so much upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils whose authority I so much diminish in my Liberty of Prophesying I seem to pull down with one hand what I build with the other To these men I am used to answer that they ought not to wonder to see a man pull down his Out-houses to save his Father and his Children from the flames and therefore if I had wholly destroyed the Topick of Ecclesiastical Antiquity which is but an outward Guard to Episcopacy to preserve the whole Ecclesiastical order I might have been too zealous but in no other account culpable But my Lord I have done nothing of this as they mistake For Episcopacy relies not upon the Authority of Fathers and Councils but upon Scripture upon the institution of Christ or the institution of the Apostles upon an universal Tradition and an universal practice not upon the words and opinions of the Doctors It hath as great a testimony as Scripture it self hath and it is such a government as although every thing in Antiquity does minister to it and illustrate or confirm it yet since it was before the Fathers and Councils and was in full power before they had a being and they were made up of Bishops for the most part they can give no authority to themselves as a body does not beget it self or give strength to that from whence themselves had warranty integrity and constitution We bring the sayings of the Fathers in behalf of Episcopacy because the reputation they have justly purchased from posterity prevails with some and their reason with others and their practice with very many and the pretensions of the adversaries are too weak to withstand that strength But that Episcopacy derives from a higher Fountain appears by the Justifications of it against them who value not what the Fathers say But now he that says that Episcopacy besides all its own proper grounds hath also the witness of Antiquity to have descended from Christ and his Apostles and he that says that in Questions of Religion the Sayings of the Fathers alone is no demonstration of Faith does not speak things contradictory He that says that we may dissent from the Fathers when we have a reason greater than that authority does no way oppose him that says you ought not to dissent from what they say when you have no reason great enough to out-weigh it He that says the words of the Fathers are not sufficient to determine a nice Question stands not against him who says they are excellent Corroboratives in a Question already determined and practised accordingly He that says the Sayings of Fathers are no demonstration in a Question may say true and yet he that says it is a degree of probability may say true too He that says they are not our Masters speaks consonantly to the words of Christ but he that denies them to be good Instructors does not speak agreeably to reason or to the sence of the Church Sometimes they are excellent Arbitrators but not always good Judges In matters of Fact they are excellent Witnesses In matters of Right or Question they are rare Doctors and because they bring good Arguments are to be valued accordingly and he that considers these things will find that Ecclesiastical Antiquity can
desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
ought not in sacris in holy persons and places and offices it is too probable that this is the preparatory for the Antichrist and grand Apostasie For if Antichrist shall exalt himself 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 suspicious that he that devests both of their power and they are if the King be Christian in very near conjunction does the work of Antichrist for him especially if the men whom it most concerns will but call to mind that the discipline or Government which Christ hath instituted is that Kingdom by which he governs all Christendom 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 Kingdom and then either they leave the Church without a head or else put Antichrist in substitution We all wish that our fears in this and all things else may be vain that what we fear may not come upon us but yet that the abolition of Episcopacy is the fore-runner and preparatory to the great Apostasie I have these reasons to shew at least the probability First Because here is a concurse of 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 near accomplishing and what a Grand innovation of Ecclesiastical government contrary to the faith and practice of Christendom may portend now in these times when we all expect Antichrist to be revealed is worthy of a jealous mans inquiry Secondly Episcopacy if we consider the final cause was instituted as an obstructive to the diffusion of Schism and Heresie So S. Hierome In toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris Electus superponeretur caeteris VT SCHISMATVM SEMINA TOLLERENTVR And therefore if unity and division be destructive of each other then Episcopacy is the best deletery in the world for Schism and so much the rather because they are in eâdem materiâ for Schism is a division for things either personal or accidental which are matters most properly the subject of government and there to be tried 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 accidental and substantial and therefore a direct confronting of Schism not only in the intention of the author of it but in the nature of the institution Now then although Schisms always will be and this by divine prediction which clearly shews the necessity of perpetual Episcopacy and the intention of its perpetuity either by Christ himself 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 Apostasie for then were not the hours turned into minutes an universal ruine should seize all Christendom No flesh should be saved if those days were not shortened Is it not next to an evidence of fact that this multiplication of Schisms must be removendo prohibens and therefore that must be by invalidating Episcopacy ordained as the remedy and obex of Schism either tying their hands behind them by taking away their coercion or by putting out their eyes by denying them cognizance of causes spiritual or by cutting off their heads and so destroying their order How far these will lead us I leave to be considered This only Percute pastores atque oves dispergentur and I believe it will be verified at the coming of that wicked one I saw all Israel scattered upon the Mountains as sheep having no shepherd I am not new in this conception I learn'd it of S. Cyprian Christi adversarius Ecclesiae ejus inimicus ad hoc ECCLESIAE PRAEPOSITVM suâ infestatione persequitur ut Gubernatore sublato atrocius atque violentius circa Ecclesiae naufragia grassetur The adversary of Christ and enemy of his Spouse therefore persecutes the Bishop that having taken him away he may without check pride himself in the ruines of the Church and a little after speaking of them that are enemies to Bishops he says 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 vain or not the thing of it self is of deep consideration and the Catholick practice of Christendom for 1500 years is so insupportable a prejudice against the enemies of Episcopacy that they must bring admirable evidence of Scripture or a clear revelation proved by Miracles or a contrary undoubted tradition Apostolical for themselves or else hope for no belief against the prescribed possession of so many ages But before I begin methinks 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 lose the benefit of their prescribed possession If it can I fear they will scarce gain so much as the obedience of the adverse party by it which yet already is their due It is very unequal but so it is ever when Authority is the matter of the Question Authority never gains by it for although the cause go on its side yet it loses costs and dammages for it must either by fair condescension to gain the adversaries lose something of it self or if it asserts it self to the utmost it is but that seldom 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 huc deventum est Now we are in we must go over SECT I. Christ did institute a Government in his Church FIRST then that we may build upon a Rock Christ did institute a government to order and rule his Church by his Authority according to his Laws and by the assistance of the blessed Spirit 1. If this were not true how shall the Church be governed For I hope the adversaries of Episcopacy that are so punctual to pitch all upon Scripture ground will be sure to produce clear Scripture for so main a part of Christianity as is the Form of the Government of Christs Church And if for our private actions and duties Oeconomical 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 Laws intend the publick and the general directly the private and the particular by consequence only and comprehension within the general 2. If Christ himself 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
provoca 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synesius To be provoked to a Duel to be challenged And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom Ad precandum vos provoco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Thou makest me or compellest me to shed tears Suaviter omnia That 's the way S. Paul takes Meekly but yet so as to do his office to keep all in their several duties and that is by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 command these things for so he summes up the Bishops duty towards Presbyters Neophytes and Widows Give all these things in charge Command all to do their duty Command but not objurgate Et quid negotii esset Episcopo ut Presbyterum non objurgaret si super Presbyterum non haberet potestatem So Epiphanius urges this argument to advantage For indeed it had been to little purpose for S. Paul to have given order to Timothy how he should exercise his Jurisdiction over Presbyters and people if he had had no Jurisdiction and coercive authority at all Nay and howsoever Saint Paul forbids Timothy to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet S. Paul in his second Epistle bids him use it intimating upon great occasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To be sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be but an urging or an exhortation is not all for S. Paul gives him coercive jurisdiction as well as directive Over Widows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reject the younger widows viz. à collegio viduarum ab eleemosynis Ecclesiae Over Presbyters for he commands him to have sufficient probate in the accusation of Presbyters of which if he was not to take cognizance it was to no purpose to number witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Receive not a publick accusation foro externo against a Priest Non vocabis in jus nisi in testimonio duorum c. to wit in causes criminal That is sufficient intimation of the Bishops power to take cognizance in causes criminal then for his punishing in such cases it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reprehend them publickly that is disgrace them For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indecorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Paul is to call them to publick account that 's one part of the jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to examine Plato Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give an account of ones life Idem in Apolog. And then also it implies punishment upon conviction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad But the words in S. Paul will clear the business Let them that sin be publickly shamed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the rest may fear A punishment most certainly something that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Malum in genere poenae What else should they fear to sin Most true But why upon this reprehension if not for fear of being punished Add to all this that here is in this Chapter the plain giving of a jurisdiction an erection of a Judicatory and is all the way direction for his proceeding in cases criminal appears most evidently v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without prejudging the cause of any man before it comes in open contestation under publick test of witnesses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing nothing for favour or partiality Nothing in the world is plainer for the erection of a Consistory than these mandates of S. Paul Lastly to make up his Episcopal function compleat S. Paul gives him also direction concerning giving of orders Lay hands suddenly on no man Sub testatione ergo ea quae ad ordinationem Ecclesiae mandat custodiri Nè facilè aliquis accipiat Ecclesiasticam dignitatem peccat enim si non probat sic ordinet Melior enim caeteris debet probari qui ordinandus est Haec Episcopus custodiens castum se exhibebit religioni cujus rei infuturo praemium consequetur So S. Ambrose upon the place who is so far from exempting Presbyters from being submitted to the Bishops Consistory that he does appropriate all his former cautions concerning the Judicature and coercive Jurisdiction to causes of the Clergy Adde to this evidence of Scripture the testimony of Catholick and unquestioned Antiquity affirming S. Timothy to have been ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul Eusebius speaking of the successions to S. Paul Sed Lucas saith he in actibus Apostolorum plurimos ejus socios memorat sicut Timothei Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus ab eo ordinatus praeficitur S. Ambrose affirms that S. Paul having ordained him Bishop writes his first Epistle to him to instruct him in his Episcopal Office Hunc igitur jam creatum Episcopum instruit per Epistolam quomodo deberet Ecclesiam ordinare And that this Epistle was written to instruct S. Timothy for his own person and all Bishops in him for their deportment in the office of a Bishop is the united concurrent testimony of S. Vincentius Tertullian S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose Oecumenius Epiphanius Primasius and S. Gregory As for Epiphanius in the place now quoted he uses it as an argument against the madness and stupidity of Aerius contending a Bishop and a Presbyter to be all one Docet Divinus Apostoli sermo quis sit Episcopus quis Presbyter quum dicit ad Timotheum qui erat Episcopus Presbyterum ne objurges c. I shall transcribe no more testimonies for this particular but that of the general Council of Chalcedon in the case of Bassianus and Stephanus Leontius the Bishop of Magnesia spake it in full Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From S. Timothy until now there have been 27 Bishops ordained in Ephesus Who desires a multitude of testimonies though enough already have deposed in the cause besides the evidence of Scripture may to these add that saying of S. Chrysostom that to Timothy was committed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Theodoret calling him Episcopum Asianorum the subscription to the first Epistle to Timothy which if it were not writ by S. Paul yet at least will prove a Primitive record and very ancient the fragment of the Martyrdom of S. Timothy in Photius S. Hierom S. Theophylact Isidore and Nicephorus And now all is well if after all this Timothy do not prove an Evangelist for this one objection will be sufficient to catch at to support a drowning cause and though neither pertinent nor true yet shall be laid in the balance against all the evidence of Scripture and Catholick Antiquity But do the work of an Evangelist saith S. Paul therefore it is clear S. Timothy was no Bishop No was not That 's hard But let us try however 1.
great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their souls * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32 Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopal dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops SECT XXXVI Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coercion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coercion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him unless the Bishop that censured him be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Council only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops Si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Council with frivolous appeals and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemn him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop and the other of the Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a Priest or Deacon by his own Bishop if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exteras opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturb the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Judge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the Audientia Episcopalis The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
when they were reeking in their malice hot as the fire of Hell he did it to teach us a duty Docuit enim Sacerdotes veros Legitime plene honorari dum circa falsos Sacerdotes ipse talis extitit It is the argument he uses to procure a full honour to the Bishop * To these I add If sitting in a Throne even above the seat of Elders be a title of a great dignity then we have it confirmed by the voice of all Antiquity calling the Bishops Chair a Throne and the investiture of a Bishop in his Church an Inthronization Quando Inthronizantur propter communem utilitatem Episcopi c. saith Pope Anterus in his decretal Epistle to the Bishops of Boetica and Toledo Inthroning is the Primitive word for the consecration of a Bishop Sedes in Episcoporum Ecclesiis excelsae constitutae praeparatae ut Thronus speculationem potestatem judicandi à Domino sibi datam materiam docent saith Vrban And S. Ignatius to his Deacon Hero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I trust that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will show to me Hero sitting upon my Throne ** The sum of all is this Bishops if they must be at all most certainly must be beloved it is our duties and their work deserves it Saint Paul was as dear to the Galatians as their eyes and it is true eternally Formosi pedes Evangelizantium the feet of the Preachers of the Gospel are beauteous and then much more of the chief Ideo ista praetulimus charissimi ut intelligatis potestatem Episcoporum vestrorum in eisque Deum veneremini eos ut animas vestras diligatis ut quibus illi non communicant non communicetis c. Now love to our Superiours is ever honourable for it is more than amicitia that 's amongst Peers but love to our Betters is Reverence Obedience and high Estimate And if we have the one the dispute about the other would be a meer impertinence I end this with the saying of Saint Ignatius Et vos decâ—t non contemnere aetatem Episcopi sed juxta Dei Patris arbitrium omnem illi impertiri Reverentiam It is the will of God the Father that we should give all Reverence Honour or veneration to our Bishops SECT XLIX And trusted with Affairs of Secular interest WELL However things are now it was otherwise in the old Religion for no honour was thought too great for them whom God had honoured with so great degrees of approximation to himself in power and authority But then also they went further For they thought whom God had intrusted with their souls they might with an equal confidence trust with their personal actions and imployments of greatest trust For it was great consideration that they who were Antistites religionis the Doctors and great Dictators of faith and conscience should be the composers of those affairs in whose determination a Divine wisdom and interests of Conscience and the authority of Religion were the best ingredients But it is worth observing how the Church and the Commonwealth did actions contrary to each other in pursuance of their several interests The Common-wealth still enabled Bishops to take cognisance of causes and the confidence of their own people would be sure to carry them thither where they hop'd for fair issue upon such good grounds as they might fairly expect from the Bishops Abilities Authority and Religion But on the other side the Church did as much decline them as she could and made Sanctions against it so far as she might without taking from themselves all opportunities both of doing good to their people and ingaging the secular arm to their own assistance But this we shall see by consideration of particulars 1. It was not in Naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an office of secular imployment Saint Paul's tent-making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the office of a Bishop And it is hard if we will not allow that to the conveniences of a Republick which must be indulged to a private personal necessity But we have not Saint Paul's example only but his rule too according to Primitive exposition Dare any of you having a matter before another go to Law before the unjust and not before the Saints If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life set them to judge who are least esteemed in the Church Who are they The Clergy I am sure now adayes But Saint Ambrose also thought that to be his meaning seriously Let the Ministers of the Church be the Judges For by least esteemed he could not mean the most ignorant of the Laity they would most certainly have done very strange justice especially in such causes which they understand not No but set them to judge who by their office are Servants and Ministers of all and those are the Clergy who as Saint Paul's expression is Preach not themselves but Jesus to be the Lord and themselves your servants for Jesus sake Meliùs dicit apud Dei ministros agere causam Yea but Saint Paul's expression seems to exclude the Governours of the Church from intermedling Is there not one wise man among you that is able to judge between his Brethren Why Brethren if Bishops and Priests were to be the Judges they are Fathers The objection is not worth the noting but only for Saint Ambrose his answer to it Ideò autem fratrem Judicem eligendum dicit qui adhuc Rector Ecclesiae illorum non erat ordinatus Saint Paul us'd the word Brethren for as yet a Bishop was not ordained amongst them of that Church intimating that the Bishop was to be the man though till then in subsidium a prudent Christian man might be imployed 2. The Church did alwayes forbid to Clergy-men a voluntary Assumption of ingagements in Rebus Saeculi So the sixth Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Bishop and a Priest and a Deacon must not assume or take on himself worldly cares If he does let him be depos'd Here the Prohibition is general No worldly cares Not domestick But how if they come on him by Divine imposition or accident That 's nothing if he does not assume them that is by his voluntary act acquire his own trouble So that if his secular imployment be an act of obedience indeed it is trouble to him but no sin But if he seeks it for it self it is ambition In this sence also must the following Canon be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Clerk must not be a Tutor or Guardian viz of secular trust that is must not seek a diversion from his imployment by voluntary Tutorship 3. The Church also forbad all secular negotiation for base ends not precisely the imployment it self but the illness of the intention and this indeed she expresly forbids in her Canons Pervenit ad Sanctam
the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else * But for the main Question Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus far Saint Ambrose * Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba President in the Nicene Council said it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis in church-Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affairs Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity To these add the Council of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire Aliter à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants but the Bishop unless the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must hear the cause but no Lay-Judges by any means * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict for so Justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already Sect. 36. and Sect. 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the Latine for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four for to pretend such slight aery imaginations against the constant known open Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church and History of all ages is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge Antiquity for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would fain have been it is known so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either Divine or Humane but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the Lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the nearest denomination The Objection is from Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine especially they therefore all Elders do not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are Governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Paul's sence not so much to do one as to do the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not Saint Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same Order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the Office and therefore the sence of the words is this That all Presbyters must be honoured but especially they that Prophesie doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Add to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born
expiation of them they fancy and consequently give what allowance they list to those whom they please to mislead For in innumerable Cases of Conscience it is oftner inquired whether a thing be Venial or Mortal than whether it be lawful or not lawful and as Purgatory is to Hell so Venial is to Sin a thing which men fear not because the main stake they think to be secured for if they may have Heaven at last they care not what comes between And as many men of the Roman perswasion will rather chuse Purgatory than suffer here an inconsiderable penance or do those little services which themselves think will prevent it so they chuse venial sins and hug the pleasures of trifles warming themselves at phantastick fires and dancing in the light of the Glo-worms and they love them so well that rather than quit those little things they will suffer the intolerable pains of a temporary Hell for so they believe which is the testimony of a great evil and a mighty danger for it gives testimony that little sins can be beloved passionately and therefore can minister such a delight as is thought a price great enough to pay for the sufferance of temporal evils and Purgatory it self 3. But the evil is worse yet when it is reduc'd to practice For in the decision of very many questions the answer is It is a venial sin that is though it be a sin yet there is in it no danger of losing the favour of God by that but you may do it and you may do it again a thousand thousand times and all the venial sins of the world put together can never do what one mortal sin can that is make God to be your enemy So Bellarmine expresly affirms But because there are many Doctors who write Cases of Conscience and there is no measure to limit the parts of this distinction for that which is not at all cannot be measured the Doctors differ infinitely in their sentences some calling that Mortal which others call Venial as you may see in the little Summaries of Navar and Emanuel Sà the poor souls of the Laity and the vulgar Clergy who believe what is told them by the Authors or Confessors they chuse to follow must needs be in infinite danger and the whole body of Practical Divinity in which the life of Religion and of all our hopes depends shall be rendred dangerous and uncertain and their confidence shall betray them unto death 4. To bring relief to this state of evil and to establish aright the proper grounds and measures of Repentance I shall first account concerning the difference of sins and by what measures they are so differenc'd 2. That all sins are of their own nature punishable as God please even with the highest expressions of his anger 3. By what Repentance they are cur'd and pardon'd respectively SECT II. Of the difference of sins and their measures 5. I. SINS are not equal but greater or less in their principle as well as in their event It was one of the errors of Jovinian which he learned from the Schools of the Stoicks that all sins are alike grievous Nam dicunt esse pares res Furta latrociniis magnis parva minantur Falce recisuros simili se si sibi regnum Permittant homines For they supposed an absolute irresistible Fate to be the cause of all things and therefore what was equally necessary was equally culpable that is not at all and where men have no power of choice or which is all one that it be necessary that they chuse what they do there can be no such thing as Laws or sins against them To which they adding that all evils are indifferent and the event of things be it good or bad had no influence upon the felicity or infelicity of man they could neither be differenc'd by their cause nor by their effect the first being necessary and the latter indifferent * Against this I shall not need to oppose many Arguments for though this follows most certainly from their doctrine who teach an irresistible Decree of God to be the cause of all things and actions yet they that own the doctrine disavow the consequent and in that are good Christians but ill Logicians But the Article is sufficiently cleared by the words of our B. Lord in the case of Judas whose sin as Christ told to Pilate was the greater because he had not power over him but by special concession in the case of the servant that knows his Masters will and does it not in the several condemnations of the degrees and expressions of anger in the instances of Racha and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou vain man or Thou fool by this comparing some sins to gnats and some to Camels and in proportion to these there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke many stripes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. James a greater condemnation * Thus to rob a Church is a greater sin than to rob a Thief To strike a Father is a higher impiety than to resist a Tutor To oppress a Widow is clamorous and calls aloud for vengeance when a less repentance will vote down the whispering murmurs of a trifling injury done to a fortune that is not sensible of smaller diminutions Nec vincit ratio tantundem ut peccet idémque Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti Vt qui nocturnus Divûm sacra legerit He is a greater criminal that steals the Chalice from a Church than he that takes a few Coleworts or robs a garden of Cucumers But this distinction and difference is by something that is extrinsecal to the action the greatness of the mischief or the dignity of the person according to that Omne animi vitium tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto major qui peccat habetur 6. II. But this when it is reduc'd to its proper cause is because such greater sins are complicated they are commonly two or three sins wrapt together as the unchastity of a Priest is uncleanness and scandal too Adultery is worse than Fornication because it is unchastity and injustice and by the fearful consequents of it is mischievous and uncharitable Et quas Euphrates quas mihi misit Orontes Me capiant Nolo furta pudica thori So Sacriledge is theft and impiety And Apicius killing himself when he suppos'd his estate would not maintain his luxury was not only a self-murtherer but a gluttonous person in his death Nil est Apici tibi gulosius factum So that the greatness of sins is in most instances by extension and accumulation that as he is a greater sinner who sins often in the same instance than he that sins seldom so is he who sins such sins as are complicated and intangled like the twinings of combining Serpents And this appears to be so because if we take single sins as uncleanness and theft no man can tell which is the greater sin neither
the manners of all men 1. The first great cause of an universal impiety is that at first God had made no promises of Heaven he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior that is to make the will chuse the best and leave the worst and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction For if the inferior faculty be pleas'd with its object and that chance to be forbidden as it was in most instances there had need be something to make recompence for the suffering the displeasure of crossing that appetite I use the common manner of speaking and the distinction of superior and inferior faculties though indeed in nature there is no such thing and it is but the same faculty divided between differing objects of which I shall give an account in the Ninth Chapter Section 3. But here I take notice of it that it may not with prejudice be taken to the disadvantage of this whole Article For if there be no such difference of facultie◠founded in Nature then the rebellion of the inferior against the superior is no effect of Adams sin But the inclination to sensual objects being chastis'd by laws and prohibitions hath made that which we call the rebellion of the inferior that is the adherence to sensual objects which was the more certain to remain because they were not at first enabled by great promises of good things to contest against sensual temptations And because there was no such thing in that period of the world therefore almost all flesh corrupted themselves excepting Abel Seth Enos and Enoch we find not one good man from Adam to Noah and therefore the Apostle calls that world 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the world of the ungodly It was not so much wonder that when Adam had no promises made to enable him to contest his natural concupiscence he should strive to make his condition better by the Devils promises If God had been pleased to have promis'd to him the glories he hath promised to us it is not to be suppos'd he had fallen so easily But he did not and so he fell and all the world followed his example and most upon this account till it pleas'd God after he had tried the world with temporal promises and found them also insufficient to finish the work of his graciousness and to cause us to be born anew by the revelations and promises of Jesus Christ. 69. II. A second cause of the universal iniquity of the world is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances not because Nature is originally corrupted but because Gods laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of Nature I instance in the matters of Temperance Abstinence Patience Humility Self-denial and Mortification But more particularly thus A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies This is naturally no sin for the natural desire was put into us by God and therefore could not be evil But then God as an instance and trial of our obedience put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determin'd us to one woman which provision was enough to satisfie our need but not all our possibility This therefore he left as a reserve that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire we might give him something of our own * But then it is to be considered that our unwillingness to obey in this instance or in any of the other cannot be attributed to Original sin or natural disability deriv'd as a punishment from Adam because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful But our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the law coming cross upon our nature not because our nature is contrary to God but because God was pleas'd to superinduce some Commandments contrary to our nature For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and drink the richest wines as long as they could please us and were to be had I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love therefore our nature is hard put to it and this is the true state of the difficulty Citò nequitia subrepit virtus difficilis inventa est Wickedness came in speedily but vertue was hard and difficult 70. III. But then besides these there are many concurrent causes of evil which have influence upon communities of men such as are Evil Examples the similitude of Adams transgression vices of Princes wars impunity ignorance error false principles flattery interest fear partiality authority evil laws heresie schism spite and ambition natural inclination and other principiant causes which proceeding from the natural weakness of humane constitution are the fountain and proper causes of many consequent evils Quis dabit mundum ab immundo saith Job How can a clean thing come from an unclean We all naturally have great weaknesses and an imperfect constitution apt to be weary loving variety ignorantly making false measures of good and evil made up with two appetites that is with inclination to several objects serving to contrary interests a thing between Angel and Beast and the later in this life is the bigger ingredient Hominem à Naturâ noverca in lucem edi corpore nudo fragili atque infirmo animo anxio ad molestias humili ad timores debili ad labores proclivi ad libidines in quo Divinus ignis sit obrutus ingenium mores So Cicero as S. Austin quotes him Nature hath like a stepmother sent man into the world with a naked boy a frail and infirm mind vex'd with troubles dejected with fears weak for labours prone to lusts in whom the Divine fire and his wit and his manners are covered and overturn'd And when Plato had fiercely reprov'd the baseness of mens manners by saying that they are even naturally evil he reckons two causes of it which are the diseases of the Soul but contracted he knew not how Ignorance and Improbity which he supposes to have been the remains of that baseness they had before they entred into bodies whither they were sent as to a prison This is our natural uncleanness and imperfection and from such a principle we are to expect proper and proportion'd effects and therefore we may well say with Job What is man that he should be clean and he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous That is our imperfections are many and we are with unequal strengths call'd to labour for a supernatural purchase and when our spirit is very willing even then our flesh is very weak And yet it is worse if we compare our selves as Job does
material But I fear it will not often For how can a man be sorrowful for not being sorrowful For either he hath reason at first to be sorrowful or he hath not If he hath not why should he be sorrowful for not doing an unreasonable act If he hath reason and knows it it is certain he will be as sorrowful as that cause so apprehended can effect but he can be no more and so much he cannot chuse but be But if there be cause to be sorrowful and the man knows it not then he cannot yet grieve for that for he knows no cause and that is all one as if he had none But if there be indeed a cause which he hath not considered then let him be called upon to consider that and then he will be directly and truly sorrowful when he hath considered it and hath reason to be sorrowful because he had not considered it before that is because he had not repented sooner but to be sorrowful because he is not sorrowful can have no other good meaning but this We are to endeavour to be displeased at sin and to use all the means we can to hate it that is when we find not any sensitive sorrow or pungency of spirit let us contend to make our intellectual sorrow as great as we can And if we perceive or suspect we have not true repentance let us beg of God to give it and let us use the proper means of obtaining the grace and if we are uncertain concerning the actions of our own heart let us supply them by prayer and holy desires that if we cannot perceive the grace in the proper shape and by its own symptoms and indications we may be made in some measure humbly confident by other images and reflexions by seeing the grace in another shape so David Concupivi desiderare justificationes tuas I have desired to desire thy justifications that is either I have prayed for that grace or I have seen that I have that desire not by a direct observation but by some other signification But it is certain no man can be sorrowful for not being sorrowful if he means the same kind and manner of sorrow as there cannot be two where there is not one and there cannot be a reflex ray where there was not a direct 23. But if there be such difficulty in the questions of our own sorrow it were very well that even this part of repentance should be conducted as all the other ought by the ministery of a spiritual man that it may be better instructed and prudently managed and better discerned and led on to its proper effects But when it is so help'd forward it is more than Contrition it is Confession also of which I am yet to give in special accounts SECT III. Of the Natures and Difference of Attrition and Contrition 24. ALL the passions of the irascible faculty are that sorrow in some sence or other which will produce repentance Repentance cannot kill sin but by withdrawing the will from it and the will is not to be withdrawn but by complying with the contrary affection to that which before did accompany it in evil Now whatever that affection was pleasure was the product it was that which nurs'd or begot the sin Now as this pleasure might proceed from hope from possession from sense from fancy from desire and all the passions of the concupiscible appetite so whe◠there is a displeasure conceived it will help to destroy sin from what passion soever of what faculty soever that displeasure can be produced 25. If the displeasure at sin proceeds from any passion of the irascible faculty it is that which those Divines who understand the meaning of their own words of art commonly call Attrition that is A resolving against sin the resolution proceeding from any principle that is troublesome and dolorous and in what degree of good that is appears in the stating of this Question it is acceptable to God not an acceptable repentance for it is not so much but it is a good beginning of it an acceptable introduction to it and must in its very nature suppose a sorrow or displeasure in which although according to the quality of the motives of attrition or the disposition of the penitent there is more or less sensitive trouble respectively yet in all there must be so much sorrow or displeasure as to cause a dereliction of the sin or a resolution at least to leave it 26. But there are some natures so ingenuous and there are some periods of repentance so perfect and some penitents have so far proceeded in the methods of holiness and pardon that they are fallen out with sin upon the stock of some principles proceeding from the concupiscible appetite such are Love and Hope and if these have for their object God or the Divine promises it is that noblest principle of repentance or holy life which Divines call Contrition For hope cannot be without love of that which is hoped for if therefore this hope have for its object temporal purchases it is o◠may be a sufficient cause of leaving sin according as the power and efficacy of the hope shall be but it will not be sufficient towards pardon unless in its progression it joyn with some better principle of a spiritual grace Temporal Hope and temporal Fear may begin Gods work upon our spirits but till it be gone farther we are not in the first step of an actual state of grace But as attrition proceeds from the motives of those displeasing objects which are threatned by God to be the evil consequents of sin relating to eternity so Contrition proceeds from objects and motives of desire which are promises and benefits received already or to be received hereafter But these must also be more than temporal good things for hopes and fear relating to things though promised or threatned in holy Scripture are not sufficient incentives of a holy and acceptable repentance which because it is not a transient act but a state of holiness cannot be supported by a transitory and deficient cause but must wholly rely upon expectation and love of things that are eternal and cannot pass away Attrition begins with fear Contrition hath hope and love in it The first is a good beginning but it is no more before a man can say he is pardoned he must be gone beyond the first and arrived at this The reason is plain because although in the beginnings of Repentance there is a great fear yet the causes of this fear wear away and lessen according as the repentance goes on and are quite extinguished when the penitent hath mortified his sin and hath received the spirit of adoption the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the confidence of the sons of God but because repentance must be perfect and must be perpetual during this life it must also be maintained and supported by something that is lasting and will not wear off and that is hope
we by his fall received evil enough to undo us and ruine us all but yet the evil did so descend upon us that we were left in powers and capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actual mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sin was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understanding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devil had wounded us yet Gâ—d senâ— his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyl and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory as some would make it which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adam's sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the work of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evil by his fall But to this we may superadd that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones The foot moves at the command of the Will and by the Empire of reason but the passions are stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the summ total of the evil of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a sojourner and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chuses and delights in That which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorrs and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from material Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is a useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be the emanations of distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immaterial or the motives such the act of the Will is so merely intellectual that it is then spiritual and the acts are proper and Symbolical and the act of it we call election or volition but if the Object is material or corporal the acts of the Will are passion that is adhesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body An Object can diversifie an act but never distinguish faculties And if we make it one faculty that chuses a reasonable object and another that chuses the sensual we may as well assign a third faculty for the supernatural and religious and when to chuse a sensual object is always either reasonable or unreasonable and every adherence to pleasure and mortification or refusing of it is subject to a command and the matter of duty it will follow that even the passions also are issues of the Will by passions meaning the actions of prosecution or refusal of sensitive objects the acts of the Concupiscible and Irascible appetite not the impresses made by these upon the body as trembling redness paleness heaviness and the like and therefore to say the passions rule the will is an improper saying but it hath no truth in its meaning but this that the Will is more passionate than wise it is more delighted with Bodily pleasures than Spiritual but as the understanding considers both and the disputation about them is in that faculty alone so the choice of both is in the will alone Now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I have reproved them you will find that I have reason There are one sort of Calvin's Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God looked upon mankind only as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally only because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam says the Law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerful but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men than good men can be to Dogs and Sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it says that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who
here also they are not to be confuted and as for the particular Scriptures unless we have the advantage of essential reason taken from the Divine Attributes they will oppose Scripture to Scripture and have as much advantage to expound the opposite places as the Jews have in their Questions of the Messias anâ— therefore si meos ipse corymbos necterem if I might make mine own arguments in their Society and with their leave I would upon that very account suspect the usual discourses of the effects and Oeconomy of Original sin 8. For where will they reckon the beginning of Predestination will they reckon it in Adam after the Fall or in Christ immediately promised If in Adam then they return to the Presbyterian way and run upon all the rocks before reckoned enough to break all the world in pieces If in Christ they reckon it and so they do then thus I argue If we are all reckoned in Christ before we were born then how can we be reckoned in Adam when we are born I speak as to the matter of Predestination to salvation or damnation For as for the intermedial temporal evils and dangers spiritual and sad infirmities they are our nature and might with Justice have been all the portion God had given to Adam and therefore may be so to us and consequently not at all to be reckoned in this enquiry But certainly as to the main 9. If God looks upon us all in Christ then by him we are rescued from Adam so much is done for us before we were born For if this is not to be reckoned till after we were born then Adams sin prevailed really in some periods and to some effects for which God in Christ had provided no remedy for it gave no remedy to children till after they were born but irremediably they were born children of wrath but if a remedy were given to Children before they were born then they are born in Christ not in Adam but if this remedy was not given to Children before they were born then it follows that we were not at first looked upon in Christ but in Adam and consequently he was caput praedestinationis the head of predestination or else there were two the one before we were born the other after So that haereâ—leâ—hâ—lis arundo The arrow sticks fast and it cannot be pulled out unless by other instruments than are commonly in fashion However it be yet methinks this a very good probable Argument As Adam sinned before any child was born so was Christ promised before and that our Redeemer shall not have more force upon children that they should be born beloved and quitted from wrath than Adam our Progenitor shall have to cause that we be born hated and in a damnable condition wants so many degrees of probability that it seems to dishonour the mercy of God and the reputation of his goodness and the power of his redemption For this serves as an Antidote and Antinomy of their great objection pretended by these learned persons for whereas they say they the rather affirm this because it is an honour to the redemption which our Saviour wrought for us that it rescued us from the sentence of damnation which we had incurred To this I say that the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak propositions and neither can the reputation and honour of the Divine goodness borrow aids and artificial supports from the dishonour of his Justice and it is no reputation to a Physician to say he hath cured us of an evil which we never had and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that the Son may have the Honour to have cured us I understand not that He that makes a necessity that he may find a remedy is like the Roman whom Cato found fault withall he would commit a fault that he might beg a pardon he had rather write bad Greek that he might make an apology than write good Latin and need none But however Christ hath done enough for us even all that we did need and since it is all the reason in the world we should pay him all honour we may remember that it is a greater favour to us that by the benefit of our blessed Saviour who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world we were reckoned in Christ and born in the accounts of the Divine favour I say it is a greater favour that we were born under the redemption of Christ than under the sentence and damnation of Adam and to prevent an evil is a greater favour than to cure it so that if to do honour to Gods goodness and to the graces of our Redeemer we will suppose a need we may do him more honour to suppose that the promised seed of the woman did do us as early a good as the sin of Adam could do us mischief and therefore that in Christ we are born quitted from any such supposed sentence and not that we bring it upon our shoulders into the world with us But this thing relies only upon their suppositions For if we will speak of what is really true and plainly revealed From all the sins of all mankind Christ came to redeem us He came to give us a supernatural birth to tell us all his Fathers will to reveal to us those glorious promises upon the expectation of which we might be enabled to do every thing that is required He came to bring us grace and life and spirit to strengthen us against all the powers of Hell and Earth to sanctifie our afflictions which from Adam by Natural generation descended on us to take out the sting of death to make it an entrance to immortal life to assure us of resurrection to intercede for us and to be an advocate for us when we by infirmity commit sin to pardon us when we repent Nothing of which could be derived to us from Adam by our natural generation Mankind now taken in his whole constitution and design is like the Birds of Paradise which travellers tell us of in the Molucco Islands born without legs but by a celestial power they have a recompence made to them for that defect and they always hover in the air and feed on the dew of Heaven so are we birds of Paradise but cast out from thence and born without legs without strength to walk in the Laws of God or to go to Heaven but by a power from above we are adopted in our new birth to a celestial conversation we feed on the dew of Heaven The just does live by faith and breaths in this new life by the spirit of God For from the first Adam nothing descended to us but an infirm body and a naked soul evil example and a body of death ignorance and passion hard labour and a cursed field a captive soul and an imprisoned body that is a soul naturally apt to comply with the
of the Imperial City it became the principal Seat and he surprized the highest Judicature partly by the concession of others partly by his own accidental 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 General Synod which if it be sense is pertinent to this Question for General Councils are appointed to take Cognizance of Questions and differences about the Bishop of Rome non tamen audacter in eum ferre sententiam By audacter as is supposed is meant praecipitanter hastily and unreasonably but if to give sentence against him be wholly forbidden it is non-sense for to what purpose is an Authority of taking Cognizance if they have no power of giving sentence unless it were to defer it to a superiour judge which in this case cannot be supposed For either the Pope himself is to judge his own cause after their examination of him or the General Council is to judge him So that although the Council is by that Decree enjoyned to proceed modestly and warily yet they may proceed to sentence or else the Decree is ridiculous and impertinent 5. But to clear all I will instance in matters of Question and opinion For not onely some Councils have made their Decrees without or against the Pope but some Councils have had the Pope's confirmation and yet have not been the more legitimate or obligatory but are known to be heretical 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 Council and yet the Canons are impious and hereticall and so esteemed by the Church of Rome herself 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 legaliter praedicatos And these Canons were used by Pope Nicolas I. in his Epistle ad Michaelem and by Innocent III. c. à multis extra de aetat ordinandorum So that now that we may apply this there are seven General Councils which by the Church of Rome are condemn'd of errour The Council of Antioch A. D. 345. in which Saint Athanasius was condemned The Council of Millan A. D. 354. of above 300 Bishops The Council of Ariminum consisting of 600 Bishops The second Council of Ephesus A. D. 449. in which the Eutychian heresie was confirmed and the Patriarch Flavianus kill'd by the faction of Dioscorus The Council of Constantinople under Leo Isaurus A. D. 730 And another at Constantinople 35 years after And lastly the Council at Pisa 134 years since Now that these General Councils are condemned is a sufficient Argument that Councils may erre and it is no answer to say they were not confirmed by the Pope for the Pope's confirmation I have shewn not to be necessary or if it were yet even that also is an Argument that General Councils 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 Council was actually observ'd in any Council is so hard to determine that no man can be infallibly sure that such a Council is authentick and sufficient probation 6. Secondly And that is the second thing I shall observe There are so many Questions concerning the efficient the form the matter of General Councils and their manner of proceeding and their final sanction that after a Question is determined by a Conciliary Assembly there are perhaps twenty more Questions to be disputed before we can with confidence either believe the Council upon its mere Authority or obtrude it upon others And upon this ground how easie it is to elude the pressure of an Argument drawn from the Authority of a General Council is very remarkable in the Question about the Pope's or the Council's Superiority which Question although it be defined for the Council against the Pope by five General Councils the Council of Florence of Constance of Basil of Pisa and one of the Laterans yet the Jesuites to this day account this Question pro non definita and have rare pretences for their escape As first It is true a Council is above a Pope in case there be no Pope or he uncertain which is Bellarmin's answer never considering whether he spake sense or no nor yet remembring that the Council of Basil deposed Eugenius who was a true Pope and so acknowledged Secondly sometimes the Pope did not confirm these Councils that 's their Answer And although it was an exception that the Fathers never thought of when they were pressed with the Authority of the Council of Ariminum or Sirmium or any other Arrian Convention yet the Council of Basil was conven'd by Pope Martin V. then in its sixteenth Session declared by Eugenius the IV. to be lawfully continued and confirmed expresly in some of its Decrees by Pope Nicolas and so stood till it was at last rejected by Leo the X. very many years after but that came too late and with too visible an interest and this Council did decree fide Catholicâ tenendum Concilium esse supra Papam But if one Pope confirms it and another rejects it as it happened in this case and in many more does it not destroy the competency of the Authority and we see it by this instance that it so serves the turns of men that it is good in some cases that is when it makes for them and invalid when it makes against them Thirdly but it is a little more ridiculous in the case of the Council of Constance whose Decrees were confirmed by Martin V. But that this may be no Argument against them Bellarmine tells you he onely confirmed those things quae facta fuerant Conciliariter re diligenter examinatâ of which there being no mark nor any certain Rule to judge it it is a device that may evacuate any thing we have a mind to it was not done Conciliariter that is not according to our mind for Conciliariter is a fine new-nothing that may signifie what you please Fourthly but other devices yet more pretty they have As Whether the Council of Lateran was a General Council or no they know not no nor will not know which is a wise and plain reservation of their own advantages to make it General or not General as shall serve their turns Fifthly as for the Council of Florence they are not sure whether it hath defined the Question satìs apertè apertè they will grant if you will allow them not satìs aperté Sixthly and lastly the
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
's less malice and iniquity in sparing the guilty then in condemning the good because it is in the power of men to remit a guilty person to Divine judicature and for divers causes not to use severity but in no case it is lawfull neither hath God at all given to man a power to condemn such persons as cannot be proved other then pious and innocent And therefore it is better if it should so happen that we should spare the innocent person and one that is actually deceived then that upon the turn of the wheel the true believers should be destroyed 6. And this very reason he that had authority sufficient and absolute to make Laws was pleased to urge as a reasonable inducement for the establishing of that Law which he made for the indemnity of erring persons It was in the Parable of the Tares mingled with the good seed in agro dominico The good seed Christ himself being the interpreter are the Children of the Kingdom the Tares are the children of the wicked one upon this comes the precept Gather not the tares by themselves but let them both grow together till the harvest that is till the day of Judgement This Parable hath been tortured infinitely to make it confess its meaning but we shall soon dispatch it All the difficulty and variety of exposition is reducible to these two Questions What is meant by Gather not and what by Tares that is what kind of sword is forbidden and what kind of persons are to be tolerated The former is clear for the spiritual sword is not forbidden to be used to any sort of criminals for that would destroy the power of Excommunication The prohibition therefore lies against the use of the temporal sword in cutting off some persons Who they are is the next difficulty But by Tares or the children of the wicked one are meant either persons of ill lives wicked persons onely in re practica or else another kind of evil persons men criminal or faulty in re intellectuali One or other of these two must be meant a third I know not But the former cannot be meant because it would destroy all bodies politick which cannot consist without Laws nor Laws without a compulsory and a power of the sword therefore if criminalls were to be let alone till the day of Judgement bodies politick must stand or fall ad arbitrium impiorum and nothing good could be protected not Innocence itself nothing could be secured but violence and tyranny It follows then that since a kind of persons which are indeed faulty are to be tolerated it must be meant of persons faulty in another kind in which the Gospel had not in other places clearly established a power externally compulsory and therefore since in all actions practically criminall a power of the sword is permitted here where it is denied must be meant a crime of another kind and by consequence errours intellectual commonly call'd Heresie 7. And after all this the reason there given confirms this interpretation for therefore it is forbidden to cut off these Tares lest we also pull up the wheat with them which is the sum of these two last Arguments For because Heresie is of so nice consideration and difficult sentence in thinking to root up Heresies we may by our mistakes destroy true Doctrine which although it be possible to be done in all cases of practical question by mistake yet because externall actions are more discernible then inward speculations and Opinions innocent persons are not so easily mistaken for the guilty in actions criminal as in matters of inward perswasion And upon that very reason Saint Martin was zealous to have procured a revocation of a Commission granted to certain Tribunes to make enquiry in Spain for Sects and Opinions for under colour of rooting out the Priscillianists there was much mischief done and more likely to happen to the Orthodox For it happened then as oftentimes since Pallore potiùs veste quà m fide Haereticus dijudicari solebat aliquando per Tribunos Maximi They were no good inquisitors of Heretical pravity so Sulpitius witnesses But secondly the reason says that therefore these persons are so to be permitted as not to be persecuted lest when a revolution of humane affairs sets contrary Opinions in the throne or chair they who were persecuted before should now themselves become persecuters of others and so at one time or other before or after the Wheat be rooted up and the Truth be persecuted But as these reasons confirm the Law and this sense of it so abstracting from the Law it is of itself concluding by an argument ab incommodo and that founded upon the principles of Justice and right Reason as I formerly alledged 8. Fifthly We are not onely uncertain of finding out Truths in matters disputable but we are certain that the best and ablest Doctors of Christendom have been actually deceived in matters of great concernment which thing is evident in all those instances of persons from whose Doctrine all sorts of Christians respectively take liberty to dissent The errours of Papias Irenaeus Lactantius Justin Martyr in the Millenary Opinion of Saint Cyprian Firmilian the Asian and African Fathers in the Question of Re-baptization S. Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the unbaptized children of Christian parents the Roman or the Greek Doctors in the Question of the Procession of the Holy Ghost and in the matter of Images are examples beyond exception 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now if these great personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their Opinions who should have answered the invaluable loss the Church of God should have sustained in missing so excellent so exemplary and so great Lights But then if these persons erred and by consequence might have been destroyed what should have become of others whose understanding was lower and their security less their errours more and their danger greater At this rate all men should have passed through the fire for who can escape when S. Cyprian and S. Austin cannot Now to say these persons were not to be persecuted because although they had errours yet none condemned by the Church at that time or before is to say nothing to the purpose nor nothing that is true Not true because S. Cyprian's errour was condemned by Pope Stephen which in the present sense of the prevailing party in the Church of Rome is to be condemned by the Church Not to the purpose because it is nothing else but to say that the Church did tolerate their errours For since those Opinions were open and manifest to the world that the Church did not condemn them it was either because those Opinions were by the Church not thought to be errours or if they were yet she thought fit to tolerate the errour and the erring person And if she would doe so still it would in most cases be better then now it is And yet if the Church had condemned them
his posterity 870 874. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose the liberty of will 874. The sin of Adam is not in us properly and formally a sin 876. His sin to his posterity is not damnable 877. Of the Covenant God made with Adam 914. The Law of works onely imposed on him 587 n. 1. What evil we really had from Adam's fall 748 n. 14. The following of Adam cannot be original sin 764 n. 28. The fall of Adam lost us not heaven 748 n. 3 4. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 748 n. 4. Adam was made mortal 779 n. 4. Those evils that were the effects of Adam's fall are not in us sins properly inherent 750 n. 8. His sin made us not heirs of damnation 714 n. 22. nor makes us necessarily vicious 717 n. 39. Adam's sin did not corrupt our nature by a physical efficiency 717 n. 40. nor because we were in his loins 717 n. 41. nor because of the decree of God 717 n. 42. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What latitude of signification it hath 809 n. 39. Aelfrick Who lived in England about A. D. 996. determines against Transubstantiation 266 n. 12. Aerius How he could be an heretick being his errour was not against any fundamental article 150 ss 48. He was never condemned by any general Council 150 ss 48. The heresie of the Acephali what it was 151 ss 48. Aggravate No circumstance aggravates sin so much as that of the injured person 614 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word in the Scripture 639 n. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning and use of the word 638 n. 14. Alms. Are a part of repentance 848 n. 81. How they operate in order to pardon ibid. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 617 n. 21. and 619 n. 26. S. Ambrose He was both Bishop and Prefect of Milane at one time 160 ss 49. His testimony against transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority for confirmation by Presbyters considered 19 b. 20 b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The notion of the word 809 n. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The importance of the word 617 n. 122. Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11.10 explained 58. § 9. Of worshipping them 467. Antiquity The reverence that is due to it 882. Apostle Whence that name was taken 48 § 4. Bishops were successours of the Apostles ibid. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ep. to Philip. 2.25 does not signifie Messenger but Apostle 49 § 4. That Bishops were successours in their office to the Apostles was the judgement of antiquity 59 § 10. St. James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the twelve Apostles 48 § 4. Apostles in Scripture called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. That the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Of the Canons that go under their names 981 n. 9. The Apostles were by Christ invested with an equal authority 308. S. Peter did not act as having any superiority over the other Apostles 310 § 10. c. l. 1. Arius His preaching his errours was the cause why in Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach 128 § 37. How the Orthodox complied with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. How his heresie began 958 n. 26. The opinion of Constantine the Great concerning the heresie of Arius 959 n. 26. How the opposition against his heresie was managed 958 959 960 n. 26 ad 36. Art How much it changes nature 652 n. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of the word 665 n. 18. and 637 n. 8. Athanasius The questions and answers to Antiochus under his name are spurious 544. He intended not his Creed to be imposed on others 963. Concerning his Creed ibid. n. 36. His Creed was first written in Latine then translated into Greek 963 n. 36. Attrition What it is 842 n. 63. and 828 n. 25. The difference between it and contrition ibid. Attrition joyned with absolution by the Priest that it is not sufficient demonstrated by many arguments 830 n. 33. Attrition joyned with confession to a Priest and his absolution is not equal to contrition 842 n. 62 64. S. Augustine He was employed in secular affairs at Hippo as well as Ecclesiastical 161 § 49. His authority against Transubstantiation 261 262 § 12. Of his rule to try traditions Apostolical 432. Gratian quotes that out of him that certainly never was in his writings 451. He prayed for his dead mother when he believed her to be in heaven 501 502. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no article of faith in his time 506. The Purgatory that Augustine sometimes mentions is not the Roman Purgatory 507 508. His authority in the matter of Transubstantiation 525 His zeal against the Pelagians was the occasion of his mistake in interpreting Rom. VII 15 775 n. 18. His inconstancy in the question whether concupiscence be a sin 913. Austerity Of the acts of austerity in Religion of what use they are 955 n. 18. Authority That is most effectual which is seated in the Conscience 160 § 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the Apostle means by it Tit. III. 11 780 n. 30. and 951 n. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifieth 689 n. 5. B. Baptism THE doctrine of Infant-Baptism relieth not upon tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. S. Ambrose S. Hierome and S. Augustine though born of Christian parents were not baptized till they were at full age 425. The reason why the Church baptizeth Infants 426. An answer to that saying of Perron's That there is no place of Scripture whereby we can certainly convince the Anabaptists 426. The validity of the baptism of hereticks is not to be proved by tradition without Scripture 426 427. Of the salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. Of the Scripture Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. The promise of quorum remiseritis is by some understood of Baptism 486. Of the pardon of sins after baptism 802 n. 7. Saint Cyprian and S. Chrysostome's testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. The principle on which the necessity of Infants baptism is grounded 426 and 718 n. 42. Sins committed after it may be pardoned by repentance 802 n. 8 9. It admits us into the Covenant of repentance 803 n. 10. If we labour not under the guilt of original sin why in our infancy are we baptized That objection answered 884. The state of unbaptized Infants 897. The difference between this Chrism and that of Confirmation 20 b. The difference between Baptism and Confirmation as to the use 26 b. Of the change
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Transubstantiation 231 § 11. Stapleton to confute the Lutheran Consubstantiation uses arguments drawn from the absurdity and unreasonableness of the opinion 231 § 11. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged more difficulties in it then in the whole Creation 234 § 11. Why may not Transubstantiation be believed notwithstanding the many impossibilities as well as the Trinity this Objection answered 242 § 11. The absurdities of Transubstantiation 246 247 § 11. The absurdities of the Romanists in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. The true Notion of the word Transubstantiation 250 § 12. and 251. Of the ground of that slander cast upon the Primitive Christians that they did in their religious solemnities eat the flesh of a Child 254 § 12. Perron affirms that by their doctrine the Romanists are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 254 § 12. Tertullian against Transubstantiation 256 257 258 § 12. and 300. The authority of Origen Justin Martyr Clem. Alexandrinus and S. Cyprian against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The authority of Eusebius S. Ephrem Syrus Epiphanius Macarius Gregory Nazianzen Saint Ambrose Saint Chrysostome against it and Saint Augustine 259 260 261 262 § 12. The Council of C P. against it 262 § 12. The words of Theodoret considered 264 265 § 12. The words of Galesius 265 § 12. The authority of Suidas and Hesychius against Transubstantiation 265 266 § 12. The authority of Dionysius Areopagita against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. The question of Transubstantiation was disputed amongst the Catholicks themselves A. D. 880.266 § 12. and 299. In England till Lanfrank's time it was lawful to believe Transubstantiation or reject it 266 § 12. Aelfric Abbot of Saint Albans in his Saxon Homily determines on the Protestants side in the Question of Transubstantiation 266 § 12. The words of the Gloss upon the Canon-law against it 266 267 § 12. Scotus affirms it was not de fide before the Lateran Council 267 § 12. The Lateran Council did not determine Transubstantiation How the word and doctrine grew into credit 267 § 12 299 c. 1. § 5. Pe◠Lombard's Argument against Transubstantiation 299 c. 1. § 5. Strange questions appendant to that doctrine 301 c. 1. § 5. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is impossible and implies contradictions 301. The testimonies of Scotus Odo Cameracensis by mistake quoted Ocam Roffensis Biel Lombard in the question of Transubstantiation vindicated and made good 517 518. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither this Article nor any thing else was decreed in the Lateran Council 519. The same Pope or Council that made Transubstantiation an Article of Faith made Rebellion and Treason to be the duty of Subjects 520. The opinion of Durandus in the Article of Transubstantiation 520. This consequence is good It is not common bread therefore it is bread 206 523. The testimony of Eusebius against Transubstantiation 524. The authority of St. Austin in the question of Transubstantiation 525. Concerning the words of Transubstantiation 969 n. 6. Of Berengarius when he was condemned by Pope Nicolas 993. Trinity Why the many impossibilities should not be as well an objection against the belief of the Trinity as against the belief of Transubstantiation 242 § 11. To picture God the Father or the Trinity is against Primitive practice 307. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists that the Writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence of God the Father and the Holy Trinity 550 554. Pope John XXII caused those to be burnt for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Truth The value of it and that it is to be preferred before some degrees of Peace 882. Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. U. Venial sin BEtween the least mortal and the greatest venial sin no man can distinguish 610 n. 2. Vid. tit Sin in S. Vertue An act of sorrow for the committing sin is an imperate act of the contrary vertue 684 n. 68. As of the pleasantness of the sin much is to be imputed to the habit so would vertue be pleasant and easie if it were made habitual 688 n. 2. What vertue was in the opinion of the ancient Philosophers 770 c. 8. n. 1. The difference of vertues is in relation to their objects 649 n. 56. Theology findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Blessed Virgin The Romanists interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace 329. The Lady's Psalter composed by Bonaventure 332 § 9. Her Psalter 328. A Rosary what it is ibid. The manner of their prayers to her 331. Vnderstanding Religion if it be seated onely in the Understanding not accepted to salvation 780. Of the duty of submitting the Understanding to humane authority 952 n. 12. Voluntary Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 720 n. 45. Unwillingness to sin no sign of Regeneration 783 784. W. Will. WHen it is that it serves for the deed 593 n. 23. A man's Will hath no infirmity 794 n. 62. The Will is not moved necessarily by the Understanding ibid. Between the Will and the inferiour appetite there is in nature no real distinction 825 n. 19. The sinner's unwillingness to sin does not always lessen the sin but sometimes increase it 784 n. 36. No act of the Will can destroy the will 755 n. 15. and 765 n. 29. How the necessity of Grace is consistent with the doctrine of Free-will 754 n. 15. Of Free-will 730. How the Will of man is depraved 754 n. 15. Works Reasons why with a Covenant of Works God began his entercourse with man 575. The Covenant of works when it began 573 584. Reasons shewing the justice of that dispensation of God's beginning his entercourse with man by the Covenant of Works 576. The Law of Works imposed on Adam onely 587. Worship The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to exhibit to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host according to their own doctrine are many times in danger of Idolatry inevitably 268 269 § 13. Heathens could not worship an Image terminativè 338. The Romanists worship the Cross terminativè 338. The worship of Images is Idolatry 337 338. Of worshipping the Host 467. Of worship of Angels 467. Of the worship of Images 468. Vid. Tit. Images Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. Y. Young SIns of Infirmity not accounted to young men as to others 793. Z. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OF the importance of that word 638 n. 14. To the Title of Baptism adde Of baptizing Infants 1040 1041 sect 18. per tot ERRATA PAGE 2. line 35. for
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work of the most secret mystery greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counterpoise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would infer an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be served 1. Then whether power be greater of Ordaining Priests or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question possibly it may be of some danger because in comparing Gods ordinances there must certainly be a depression of one and whether that lights upon the right side or no yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God to do that which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing but however it is unprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fix it self upon any basis there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in several respects For since they are all in order to several ends that is productive of several effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect For example Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve Chastity and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism which does neither But * Baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs natural body as the Schools speak the other in order to his mystical body and so have their several excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fix that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they go both before and after one another Thus Wool and a Jewel are better than each other for wool is better for warmth and a jewel for ornament A frogg hath more sense in it than the Sun and yet the Sun shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more it is all that which makes the Priest and it is something more besides which makes the Bishop Indeed if the Bishop had it not and the Priest had it then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination the Priest would not only equal but excel the Bishop but because the Bishop hath that and ordination besides therefore he is higher both in Order and Dignity 4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power yet a lesser power than it superadded to the Bishops may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the son of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower than the Angels It was but a little lower and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis a little lower than the Bishop the Angel of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angel and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence they both discourse they have both election and freedom of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more real and eternal worth than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no less than specifical If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection do not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turn For all the world sees that to them that deny the real presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so in all sences and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more than in ordination Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the main Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the Laws of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impress of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independently as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answer It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependent on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power that
the injury which I have already suffered he cannot make me equal amends because whatever he does to me for the future still it is true that I did suffer evil from him formerly therefore it is necessary that I do what I can to the reparation of that but because what is done and past cannot be undone I must make it up as well as I can that is I must confess my sin and be sorry for it and submit to the judgment of the offended party and he is bound to forgive me the sin and I am bound to make just and prudent amends according to my power for here every one is bound to do his share If the offending person hath done his part of duty the offended must do his that is he must forgive him that wrong'd him if he will not God will untie the penitent man and with the same chain fast bind him that is uncharitable 39. But my brother may be hurt by me though I have taken nothing from him nor intended him injury He may be scandalized by my sin that is tempted to sin incouraged in his vileness or discontented and made sorrowful for my unworthiness and transgression In all these cases it is necessary that we repent to them also that is that we make amends not only by confession to God but to our brethren also For when we acknowledge our folly we affright them from it and by repentance we give them caution that they may not descend into the same state of 〈◊〉 And upon this account all publick criminals were tied to a publick Exoâ—ologesis or Repentance in the Church who by confession of their sins acknowledged their error and entred into the state of repentance and by their being separate from the participation and communion of the mysteries were declared unworthy of a communion with Christ and a participation of his promises till by repentance and the fruits worthy of it they were adjudged capable of Gods pardon 40. At the first this was as the nature of the thing exacted it in case of publick and notorious crimes such which had done injury and wrought publick scandal and so far was necessary that the Church should be repaired if she have been injured if publick satisfaction be demanded it must be done if private be required only then that is sufficient though in case of notorious crimes it were very well if the penitent would make his repentance as exemplary as Modesty and his own and the publick circumstances can permit 41. In pursuance of this in the Primitive Church the Bishop and whom he deputed did minister to these publick satisfactions and amends which custom of theirs admitted of variety and change according as new scandals or new necessities did arise For though by the nature of the thing they only could be necessarily and essentially obliged who had done publick and notorious offences yet some observing the advantages of that way of repentance the prayers of the Church the tears of the Bishop the compassion of the faithful the joy of absolution and reconciliation did come in voluntarily and to do that by choice which the notorious criminals were to do of necessity Then the Priests which the penitents had chosen did publish or enjoyn them to publish their sins in the face of the Church but this grew intolerable and was left off because it grew to be a matter of accusation before the criminal Judge and of upbraiding in private conversation and of confidence to them that fought for occasion and hardness of heart and face and therefore they appointed one only Priest to hear the cases and receive the addresses of the penitents and he did publish the sins of them that came only in general and by the publication of their penances and their separation from the mysteries and this also changed into the more private and by several steps of progression dwindled away into private repentance towards men that is confession to a Priest in private and private satisfactions or amends and fruits of repentance and now Auricular Confession is nothing else but the publick Exomologesis or Repentance Ecclesiastical reduced to ashes it is the reliques of that excellent Discipline which was in some cases necessary as I have declared and in very many cases useful until by the dissolution of manners and the extinction of charity it became unsufferable and a bigger scandal than those which it did intend to remedy The result is this That to enumerate our sins before the Holy man that ministers in holy things that is Confession to a Priest is not virtually included in the duty of Contrition for it not being necessary by the nature of the thing nor the Divine Commandment is not necessary absolutely and properly in order to pardon and therefore is no part of Contrition which without this may be a sufficient disposition towards pardon unless by accident as in the case of scandal the criminal come to be obliged Only this one advantage is to be made of their doctrine who speak otherwise in this Article The Divines in the Council of Trent affirm That they that are contrite are reconciled to God before they receive the Sacrament of Penance as they use to speak that is before Priestly absolution If then a man can be contrite before the Priest absolves him as their saying supposes and as it is certain they may and if the desire of absolution be as they say included in Contrition and consequently that nothing is wanting to obtain pardon to the penitent even before the Priest absolves him it follows that the Priests absolution following this perfect disposition and this actual pardon can effect nothing really the man is pardon'd before-hand and therefore his absolution is only declarative God pardons the man and the Priest by his office is to tell him so when he sees cause for it and observes the conditions completed Indeed if absolution by the Minister of the Church were necessary then to desire it also would be necessary and an act of duty and obedience but then if the desire in case it were necessary to desire it would make Contrition to be complete and perfect and if perfect contrition does actually procure a pardon then the Priestly absolution is only a solemn and legal publication of Gods pardon already actually past in the Court of Heaven For an effect cannot proceed from causes which are not yet in being and therefore the pardon of the sins for which the penitent is contrite cannot come from the Priests ministration which is not in some cases to be obtain'd but desir'd only and afterwards when it can be obtain'd comes when the work is done God it may be accepts the desire but the Priests ministery afterwards is not cannot be the cause why God did accept of that desire because the desire is accepted before the absolution is in being 42. But now although this cannot be a necessary duty for the reasons before reckon'd because the Priest is
not the injur'd person and therefore cannot have the power of giving pardon properly and sufficiently and effectively and confession is not an amends to him and the duty it self of Confession is not an enumeration of particulars but a condemnation of the sin which is an humiliation before the offended party yet confession to a Priest the minister of pardon and reconciliation the Curate of souls and the Guide of Consciences is of so great use and benefit to all that are heavy laden with their sins that they who carelesly and causlesly neglect it are neither lovers of the peace of consciences nor are careful for the advantages of their souls 43. For the publication of our sins to the minister of holy things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Basil Is just like the manifestation of the diseases of our body to the Physician for God hath appointed them as spiritual Physicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to heal sinners by the antidote of repentance said the Fathers in the first Roman Council under Simplicius Their office is to comfort the comfortless to instruct the ignorant to reduce the wanderers to restore them that are overtaken in a fault to reconcile the penitent to strengthen the weak and to incourage their labours to advise remedies against sins and to separate the vile from the precious to drive scandals far from the Church and as much as may be to secure the innocent lambs from the pollutions of the infected Now in all these regards the penitent may have advantages from the Ecclesiastical ministrations There are many cases of conscience which the penitent cannot determine many necessities which he does not perceive many duties which he omits many abatements of duty which he ignorantly or presumptuously does make much partiality in the determination of his own interests and to build up a soul requires so much wisdom so much severity so many arts such caution and observance such variety of notices great learning great prudence great piety that as all Ministers are not worthy of that charge and secret imployment and conduct of others in the more mysterious and difficult parts of Religion so it is certain there are not many of the people that can worthily and sufficiently do it themselves and therefore although we are not to tell a lie for a good end and that it cannot be said that God hath by an express law required it or that it is necessary in the nature of things yet to some persons it hath put on so many degrees of charity and prudence and is so apt to minister to their superinduc'd needs that although to do it is not a necessary obedience yet it is a necessary charity it is not necessary in respect of a positive express Commandment yet it is in order to certain ends which cannot be so well provided for by any other instrument it hath not in it an absolute but it may have a relative and a superinduc'd necessity Coelestique viro quis te deceperit error Dicito pro culpâ ne scelus esse putet Now here a particular enumeration is the confession that is proper to this ministery because the minister must be instructed first in the particulars which also points out to us the manner of his assistances and of our obligation it is that we may receive helps by his office and abilities which can be better applied by how much more minute and particular the enumeration or confession is and of this circumstance there can be no other consideration excepting that the enumeration of shames and follies before a holy man is a very great restraint to the gayeties of a confident or of a tempted person For though a man dares sin in the presence of God yet he dares not let his friend or his enemy see him do a foul act Tam facile pronum est superos contemnere testes Si mortalis idem nemo sciat And therefore that a reverend man shall see his shame and with a severe and a broad eye look and stare upon his dishonour must needs be a great part of Gods restraining grace and of great use to the mortification and prevention of sin 44. One thing more there is which is highly considerable in this part or ministery of repentance It is a great part of that preparation which is necessary for him who needs and for him who desires absolution Ecclesiastical Some do need and some do desire it and it is of advantage to both They that need it and are bound to seek it are such who being publickly noted by the Church are bound by her Censures and Discipline that is such who because they have given evil example to all and encouragement in evil to some to them that are easie and apt to take are tied by the publication of their repentance their open return and publick amends to restore the Church so far as they can to that state of good things from whence their sin did or was apt to draw her This indeed is necessary and can in no regard be excused if particular persons do not submit themselves to it unless the Church her self will not demand it or advise it and then if there be an error or a possibility to have it otherwise the Governours of the Church are only answerable And in this sence are those decretory sayings and earnest advices of the ancient Doctors to be understood Laicus si peccet ipse suum non potest auferre peccatum sed indiget Sacerdote ut possit remissionem peccatorum accipere said Origen If any of the people sin himself cannot take away his own sin but must shew himself to the Priest that he may obtain pardon For they who are spotted with sins unless they be cured with the Priestly authority cannot be in the bosome of the Church said Fabianus Martyr And as express are those words of S. Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It behoveth every one that is under authority to keep â—o motion of their hearts secret but to lay the secrets of their heart naked before them who are intrusted to take care of them that are weak or sick That is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the publick penitents who are placed in the station of the mourners must not do their business imperfectly but make a perfect narrative of their whole case to the penitentiary Minister and such persons who are under discipline or under notorious sins must make their Exomologesis that is do Ecclesiastical repentance before them who are the Trustees and Stewards of the mysteries of God Quâ sine nullus remissione potietur said a Father to S. John de Gradibus without which Exomologesis or publick Ecclesiastical confession or amends no man shall obtain pardon meaning the peace of the Church For to this sence we are to understand the doctrine of the holy Fathers and we learn it from S. Austin Rectè constituuntur ab iis qui Ecclesiae