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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we mark it our Blessed Saviour points it out himself The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporal Regiment your Apostolate must be Spiritual They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or Servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the son of man so Christ sayes expresly And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the son of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spiritual superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospel and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the Septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this we know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism It is clear that the form of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the son of man so must your Regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae saith Origen And Saint Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chief the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey They must govern not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a Spiritual not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So Saint Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio consulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the Regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spiritual the other secular And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdoms by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sin if it continues and no sin if it lasts but for a week Or is it lawful to sin and domineer and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetual Dictators Calvin was perpetual President and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawful here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer and as they call it now adayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern But if the Apostles may govern then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may do the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easie to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority For inter se they might be equal and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so
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
in the first three hundred years did theirs we can serve God in our houses and sometimes in Churches and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations cannot be shaken by the convulsions of war and the changes of State But they who make our afflictions an objection against us unless they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted might do well to remember that if they ever fall into trouble they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable for by pretending Religion is destroyed when it is persecuted they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution However let our Church be where it pleases God it shall it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil Doctrine false and dangerous and I know not any Church in Christendom which hath any Article more impossible or apt to render the Communion dangerous than this in the Church of Rome and since they command us to believe all or will accept none I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others I have now given an account of the reasons of my present engagement and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to You I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude are such which although they ought to be made publick yet I know not whether your humility will permit it for you had rather oblige others than be noted by them Your Predecessor in the See of Rochester who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead did publickly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this Book and yet he was more moderate and better tempered than the rest but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors it is not improper that to you should be offered the opportunities of owning that which is the belief and honour of that See since the Religion was reformed But lest it be thought that this is an excuse rather than a reason of my address to you I must crave pardon of your humility and serve the end of glorification of God in it by acknowledging publickly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations of that grace which is the Crown of Martyrdom expending the remains of your lessened fortunes and increasing charity upon your Brethren who are dear to you not only by the band of the same Ministery but the fellowship of the same sufferings But indeed the cause in which these papers are ingaged is such that it ought to be owned by them that can best defend it and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids but by Spiritual the diminution of your outward circumstances cannot render you a person unfit to patronize this Book because where I fail your wisdom learning and experience can supply and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a publick view you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thankfulness and service of R. R. Your most affectionate and endeared Servant in the Lord Jesus JER TAYLOR A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament SECT I. State of the Question 1. THE Tree of Knowledge became the Tree of Death to us and the Tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention The holy Symbols of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration and an union of Christian societies to God and with one another and the evil taking it disunites us from God and the evil understanding it divides us from each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if men would but do reason there were in all Religion no article which might more easily excuse us from medling with questions about it than this of the holy Sacrament For as the man in Phaedrus that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak answered it was hidden under his Cloak meaning that he would not have hidden it but that he intended it should be secret so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask what or how it is Mysterium est it is a Sacrament and a Mystery by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces by the creatures it brings us to God by the body it ministers to the Spirit And that things of this nature are undiscernable secrets we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us how the material fire of Hell should torment an immaterial soul and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit and how a Sacrament should nourish a body and make it sure of the resurrection 2. It was happy with Christendom when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and entercourse that is to believe the thing heartily and not to enquire curiously and there was peace in this Article for almost a thousand years together and yet that Transubstantiation was not determined I hope to make very evident In synaxi transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia diù satis erat credere sive sub pane consecrato sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi so said the great Erasmus It was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation for a long time together it did suffice to believe that the true body of Christ was present whether under the consecrated bread or any other way so the thing was believed the manner was not stood upon And it is a famous saying of Durandus Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus praesentiam credimus We hear the Word we perceive the Motion we know not the Manner but we believe the presence and Ferus of whom Sixtus Senensis affirms that he was vir nobiliter doctus pius eruditus hath these words Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi quid opus est disputare num panis substantia maneat vel non When it is certain that Christs body is there what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no and therefore Cutbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture concerning the manner De modo quo id fieret satius erat curiosum quemque relinquere suae conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum Before the Lateran Council it was free for every one to opine as they please and it were better it were so now But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty not that he would have the manner determined but not so much as thought upon Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud Quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus For if we go about to think it
pass the common Reader to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged for more will believe him than examine him But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person The Quotations out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent but the words were not cited but now they must to justifie me and themselves 1. That reference to Tertullians book of Idolatry the objector takes no notice of as knowing it would reproach him too plainly see the words the artificers of statues and images and all kind of representations the Devil brought into the world and when he had given the Etymology of an idol saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is formula he adds Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit Inde omnis Idoli artifex ejusdem Vnius est criminis And a little before Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit And in the beginning of the fourth chapter Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit tanto prius est ne fiat si coli non licet And again toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei And a little after he brings in some or other objecting Sed ait quidam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere secit To this at last he answers Si eundum Deum observas habes legem ejus ne feceris similitudinem si praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis tu imitare Moysen Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliquod nisi tibi Deus jusserit Now here is no subterfuge for any one For Tertullian first says the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of statues images and all sorts of similitudes 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols And 3. that God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them and that the maker is guilty of the same crime and lastly I add his definition of Idolatry Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus servitus Every image is an idol and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry I hope all this put together will convince the Gentleman that denied it that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for Now for the other place quoted the words are these proinde similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo in terra in aquis ostendit causas idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth and in the Waters shews the causes that restrain idolatry the causes of idolatry be more fully described in the fore-cited place Quando enim sine idolo idololatria fiat for he supposes the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping and he calls this making statues and images Daemoniis corpora facere But there is yet another place in his books against Marcion where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie says it upon this reason Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri quanto magis imaginis suae By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame for denying that Tertullian said the making of Images to be Unlawful Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive The objector in the Letter says they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens of Alexandria because the books quoted are too big and he could not espy them The author of the Letter never examined them but took them for granted but E. W. did search a little but not exactly However he ought not to have look'd in the sixth book of the Stromata for the words there quoted but in the protrepticon as I shall shew by and by That other quotation in the Stromata is the sixth book and is only referred to as to the question in general against images for so S. Clement calls it spiritual adultery to make idols or images Now to this E. W. says although he did not find what he look'd for yet he knows before-hand that the word in the Latin translation is simulachrum that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Idol It is indeed well guessed of E. W· for the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if he had seen the place he now tells us what answer we might have expected But I am before-hand with him in this particular and out of Tertullian have prov'd idolum to be the same with formula deriv'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently means the same with an Image And he hath a good warrant from the greatest Master of the Latin tongue Imagines quae idola nominant quorum incursione non solum videamus sed etiam cogitemus c. said Cicero and the same notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in a great Master of the Greek S. Chrysostom who speaking of the statues and images with which they adorned their houses calls them Idols 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it matters not so much what Greek or Latin word is us'd in any translation for in the Hebrew in which the spirit of God spake when he forbad the worship of images he us'd two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pesel and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Themunah and the latter of these signifies always an image or similitude and that most properly and is always so translated and the former of these is translated indifferently by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 image carved image and idol for they are all one And therefore proportionably Justin Martyr reciting this law of God says that God forbad every image and similitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the words But suppose that idolum and imago were not the same yet because the Commandment forbids not only idolum but imago not only Pesel but Themunah they do not observe the Commandment who make to themselves viz. for worship either one or the other But to return to S. Clement of whom our present inquiry is And to deal most clearly in this affair as in all things else that out of the Stromata of S. Clement that I rather remark is not this of the sixth book but out of the fifth S. Clement of Alexandria saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pythagoras commanded that
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
to sin and a pursuance of that resolution by abstaining from the occasions by praying for the Divine aid by using the proper remedies for its mortification This is essential to repentance and must be in every man in the highest kind For he that does not hate sin so as rather to chuse to suffer any evil than to do any loves himself more than he loves God because he fears to displease himself rather than to displease him and therefore is not a true penitent 13. But although this be not grief or sorrow properly but hatred yet in hatred there is ever a sorrow if we have done or suffered what we hate and whether it be sorrow or no is but a speculation of Philosophy but no ingredient of duty It is that which will destroy sin and bring us to God and that is the purpose of repentance 14. For it is remarkable that sorrow is indeed an excellent instrument of repentance apt to set forward many of its ministeries and without which men ordinarily will not leave their sins but if the thing be done though wholly upon the discourses of reason upon intuition of the danger upon contemplation of the unworthiness of sin or only upon the principle of hope or fear it matters not which is the beginning of repentance For we find fear reckoned to be the beginning of wisdom that is of repentance of wise and sober counsels by Solomon We find sorrow to be reckoned as the beginning of repentance by S. Paul Godly sorrow worketh repentance not to be repented of So many ways as there are by which God works repentance in those whom he will bring unto salvation to all the kinds of these there are proper apportion'd passions and as in all good things there is pleasure so in all evil there is pain some way or other and therefore to love and hatred or which is all one to â—leasure and displeasure all passions are reducible as all colours are to black and white So that though in all repentances there is not in every person felt that sharpness of sensitive compunction and sorrow that is usual in sad accidents of the world yet if the sorrow be upon the intellectual account though it be not much perceived by inward sharpnesses but chiefly by dereliction and leaving of the sin it is that sorrow which is possible and in our power and that which is necessary to repentance 15. For in all inquiries concerning penitential sorrow if we will avoid scruple and vexatious fancies we must be careful not to account of our sorrow by the measures of sense but of religion David grieved more for the sickness of his child and the rebellion of his son so far as appears in the story and the Prophet Jeremy in behalf of the Jews for the death of their glorious Prince Josiah and S. Paula Romana at the death of her children were more passionate and sensibly afflicted than for their sins against God that is they felt more sensitive trouble in that than this and yet their repentances were not to be reproved because our penitential sorrow is from another cause and seated in other faculties and fixed upon differing objects and works in other manners and hath a divers signification and is fitted to other purposes and therefore is wholly of another nature It is a displeasure against sin which must be expressed by praying against it and fighting against it but all other expressions are extrinsecal to it and accidental and are no parts of it because they cannot be under a command as all the parts and necessary actions of repentance are most certainly 16. Indeed some persons can command their tears so Gellia in the Epigram Si quis adest jussae prosiliunt lachrymae She could cry when company was there to observe her weeping for her Father and so can some Orators and many Hypocrites and there are some that can suppress their tears by art and resolution so Vlysses did when he saw his wife weep he pitied her but Intra palpebras ceu cornu immota tenebat Lumina vel ferrum lachrymas astúque premebat he kept his tears within his eye-lids as if they had been in a phial which he could pour forth or keep shut at his pleasure But although some can do this at pleasure yet all cannot And therefore S. John Climacus speaks of certain penitents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who because they could not weep expressed their Repentance by beating their breasts and yet if all men could weep when they list yet they may weep and not be sorrowful and though they can command tears yet sorrow is no more to be commanded than hunger and therefore is not a part or necessary duty of Repentance when sorrow is taken for a sensitive trouble 17. But yet there is something of this also to be added to our duty If our constitution be such as to be apt to weep and sensitively troubled upon other intellectual apprehensions of differing objects unless also they find the same effect in their Repentances there will be some cause to suspect that their hatred of sin and value of obedience and its rewards are not so great as they ought to be The Masters of spiritual life give this rule Sciat se culpabiliter durum qui deflet damna temporis vel mortem amici dolorem verò pro peccatis lachrymis non ostendit He that weeps for temporal losses and does not in the same manner express his sorrow for his sins is culpably obdurate which proposition though piously intended is not true For tears are emanations of a sensitive trouble or motion of the heart and not properly subject to the understanding and therefore a man may innocently weep for the death of his friend and yet shed no tears when he hath told a lie and still be in that state of sorrow and displeasure that he had rather die himself than chuse to tell another lie Therefore the rule only hath some proportions of probability in the effect of several intellectual apprehensions As he that is apt to weep when he hath done an unhansome action to his friend who yet will never punish him and is not apt to express his sorrow in the same manner when he hath offended God I say he may suspect his sorrow not to be so great or so real but yet abstractedly from this circumstance to weep or not to weep is nothing to the duty of Repentance save only that it is that ordinary sign by which some men express some sort of sorrow And therefore I understand not the meaning of that prayer of S. Austin Domine dagratiam lachrymarum Lord give me the grace of tears for tears are no duty and the greatest sorrow oftentimes is the driest and excepting that there is some sweetness and ease in shedding tears and that they accompany a soft and a contemplative person an easie and a good nature and such as is apt for religious impressions I know no use of them but
to signifie in an apt and a disposed nature what kind of apprehensions and trouble there is within For weeping upon the presence of secular troubles is more ready and easie because it is an effect symbolical and of the same nature with its proper cause But when there is a spiritual cause although its proper effect may be greater and more effective of better purposes yet unless by the intermixture of some material and natural cause it be more apportion'd to a material and natural product it is not to be charged with it or expected from it Sin is a spiritual evil and tears is the sign of a natural or physical sorrow Smart and sickness and labour are natural or physical evils and hatred and nolition is a spiritual or intellectual effect Now as every labour and every smart is not to be hated or rejected but sometimes chosen by the understanding when it is mingled with a good that pleases the understanding and is eligible upon the accounts of reason So neither can every sin which is the intellectual evil be productive of tears or sensitive sorrow unless it be mingled with something which the sense and affections that is which the lower man hates and which will properly afflict him such as are fear or pain or danger or disgrace or loss The sensitive sorrow therefore which is usually seen in new penitents is upon the account of those horrible apprehensions which are declared in holy Scriptures to be the consequent of sins but if we shall so preach Repentance as to warrant a freedom and a perfect escape instantly from all significations of the wrath of God and all dangers for the future upon the past and present account I know not upon what reckoning he that truly leaves his sin can be commanded to be sorrowful and if he were commanded how he can possibly obey 18. But when repentance hath had its growth and progression and is increased into a habit of piety sorrow and sensitive trouble may come in upon another account for great and permanent changes of the mind make great impressions upon the lower man When we love an object intensely our very body receives comfort in the presence of it and there are friendly Spirits which have a natural kindness and cognation to each other and refresh one another passing from eye to eye from friend to friend and the Prophet David felt it in the matter of Religion My flesh and my heart rejoyce in the living Lord. For if a grief of mind is a consumption of the flesh and a chearful spirit is a conservatory of health it is certain that every great impression that is made upon the mind and dwells there hath its effect upon the body and the lower affections And therefore all those excellent penitents who consider the baseness of sin * their own danger though now past in some degrees * the offence of God * the secret counsels of his Mercy * his various manners of dispensing them * the fearful judgments which God unexpectedly sends upon some men * the dangers of our own confidence * the weakness of our Repentance * the remains of our sin * the aptnesses and combustible nature of our Concupiscence * the presence of temptation and the perils of relapsing * the evil state of things which our former sins leave us in * our difficulty in obeying and our longings to return to Egypt * and the fearful anger of God which will with greater fierceness descend if we chance to fall back Those penitents I say who consider these things frequently and prudently will find their whole man so wrought upon that every faculty shall have an enmity against sin and therefore even the affections of the lower man must in their way contribute to its mortification and that is by a real and effective sorrow 19. But in this whole affair the whole matter of question will be in the manner of operation or signification of the dislike For the duty is done if the sin be accounted an enemy that is whether the dislike be only in the intellectual and rational appetite or also in the sensitive For although men use so to speak and distinguish superior from inferior appetites yet it will be hard in nature to find any real distinct faculties in which those passions are subjected and from which they have emanation The intellectual desire and the sensual desire are both founded in the same faculty they are not distinguished by their subjects but by their objects only they are but several motions of the will to or from several objects When a man desires that which is most reasonable and perfective or consonant to the understanding that we call an intellectual or rational appetite but if he desires a thing that will do him hurt in his soul or to his best interest and yet he desires it because it pleases him this is fit to be called a sensitive appetite because the object is sensitive and it is chosen for a sensual reason But it is rather appetitio than appetitus that is an act rather than a principle of action The case is plainer if we take two objects of several interests both of which are proportion'd to the understanding S. Anthony in the desart and S. Bernard in the Pulpit were tempted by the spirit of pride they resisted and overcame it because pride was unreasonable and foolish as to themselves and displeasing to God If they had listned to the whispers of that spirit it had been upon the accounts of pleasure because pride is that deliciousness of spirit which entertains a vain man making him to delight in his own images and reflexions and therefore is a work of the flesh but yet plainly founded in the understanding And therefore here it is plain that when the flesh and the spirit fight it is not a fight between two faculties of the soul but a contest in the soul concerning the election of two objects It is no otherwise in this than in every deliberation when arguments from several interests contest each other Every passion of the man is nothing else but a proper manner of being affected with an object and consequently a tendency to or an aversion from it that is a willing or a nilling of it which willing and nilling when they produce several permanent impressions upon the mind and body receive the names of divers passions The object it self first striking the fancy or lower apprehensions by its proper energy makes the first passion or tendency to the will that is the inclination or first concupiscence but when the will upon that impression is set on work and chuses the sensual object that makes the abiding passion the quality As if the object be displeasing and yet not present it effects fear or hatred if good and not present it is called desire but all these diversifications are meerly natural effects as to be warm is before the fire and cannot be in our choice directly and immediately That
nor charitable to extend the Gravamen and punishment beyond the instances the Apostles make or their exact parallels But then also it would be remembred that the Apostles speak as fiercely against communion with Fornicatours and all disorders practical as against communion with Hereticks If any man that is called a brother be a Fornicatour or Covetous or an Idolater or a Railer or a Drunkard or an Extortioner with such a one no not to eat I am certain that a drunkard is as contrary to God and lives as contrary to the Laws of Christianity as an Heretick and I am also sure that I know what drunkenness is but I am not sure that such an Opinion is Heresie neither would other men be so sure as they think for if they did consider it aright and observe the infinite deceptions and causes of deceptions in wise men and in most things and in all doubtful Questions and that they did not mistake confidence for certainty But indeed I could not but smile at those jolly Friers two Franciscans offered themselves to the fire to prove Savonarola to be a Heretick but a certain Jacobine offered himself to the fire to prove that Savonarola had true Revelations and was no Heretick in the mean time Savonarola preacht but made no such confident offer nor durst he venture at that new kind of fire Ordeal And put case all four had past through the fire and died in the flames what would that have proved Had he been a Heretick or no Heretick the more or less for the confidence of these zealous Ideots If we mark it a great many Arguments whereon many Sects rely are no better probation then this comes to Confidence is the first and the second and the third part of a very great many of their propositions But now if men would a little turn the Tables and be as zealous for a good life and all the strictest precepts of Christianity which is a Religion the most holy the most reasonable and the most consummate that ever was taught to man as they are for such Propositions in which neither the life nor the ornament of Christianity is concerned we should find that as a consequent of this piety men would be as carefull as they could to find out all Truths and the sence of all Revelations which may concern their duty and where men were miserable and could not yet others that lived good lives too would also be so charitable as not to adde affliction to this misery and both of them are parts of good life To be compassionate and to help to bear one another's burthens not to destroy the weak but to entertain him meekly that 's a precept of charity and to edeavour to find out the whole will of God that also is a part of the obedience the choice and the excellency of Faith and he lives not a good life that does not doe both these But men think they have more reason to be zealous against Heresie then against a vice in manners because Heresie is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evil Indeed if by an Heresie we mean that which is against an Article of Creed and breaks part of the Covenant made between God and man by the mediation of Jesus Christ I grant it to be a very grievous crime a calling God's veracity into question and a destruction also of good life because upon the Articles of Creed obedience is built and it lives or dies as the effect does by its proper cause for Faith is the moral cause of obedience But then Heresie that is such as this is also a vice and the person criminal and so the sin is to be esteemed in its degrees of malignity and let men be as zealous against it as they can and employ the whole Arsenal of the spiritual armour against it such as this is worse then adultery or murther inasmuch as the Soul is more noble then the Body and a false Doctrine is of greater dissemination and extent then a single act of violence or impurity Adultery or murther is a duel but Heresie truly and indeed such is an unlawful war it slays thousands The losing of Faith is like digging down a foundation all the superstructures of hope and patience and charity fall with it And besides this Heresie of all crimes is the most inexcusable and of least temptation for true Faith is most commonly kept with the least trouble of any grace in the world and Heresie of itself hath not onely no pleasure in it but is a very punishment because Faith as it opposes heretical or false Opinions and distinguishes from charity consists in mere acts of believing which because they are of true Propositions are natural and proportionable to the understanding and more honourable then false But then concerning those things which men now a-days call Heresie they cannot be so formidable as they are represented and if we consider that drunkenness is certainly a damnable sin and that there are more drunkards then Hereticks and that drunkenness is parent of a thousand vices it may better be said of this vice then of most of those opinions which we call Heresies it is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evil and therefore as fit an object for a pious zeal to contest against as is any of those Opinions which trouble mens ease or reputation for that is the greatest of their malignity But if we consider that Sects are made and Opinions are called Heresies upon interest and the grounds of emolument we shall see that a good life would cure much of this mischief For First the Church of Rome which is the great Dictatrix of dogmatical Resolutions and the declarer of Heresie and calls Heretick more then all the world besides hath made that the rule of Heresie which is the conservatory of interest and the ends of men For to recede from the Doctrine of the Church with them makes Heresie that is to disrepute their Authority and not to obey them not to be their subjects not to give them the empire of our Conscience is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heresie So that with them Heresie is to be esteemed clearly by humane ends not by Divine Rules that is formal Heresie which does materially disserve them And it would make a suspicious man a little inquisitive into their particular Doctrines and when he finds that Indulgences and Jubilees and Purgatories and Masses and Offices for the dead are very profitable that the Doctrine of Primacy of Infallibility of Superiority over Councils of indirect power in temporals are great instruments of secular honour he would be apt enough to think that if the Church of Rome would learn to lay her honour at the feet of the Crucifix and despise the world and prefer Jerusalem before Rome and Heaven above the Lateran that these Opinions would not have in them any native strength to support them against the perpetual assaults of
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
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
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