which it stands upon other termes But this I say that when the extremity of one party occasions the other to fall into the opposite extreme neither party seemes clearely excusable of the fault which the other commits in betaking it selfe to the opposite extreme And then I say further that when secular force was applyed to impose a burthen which the experience of more in corrupt times had showed that they could not bear the issue must needs be the treading down of Christianity for maintaining of the â—edge that should sense it And therefore the proceedings being voide in all reason of Law it is no marvaile if that moderation which the argeement of both sides might have preserved could not take place I am yet indebted to those of the congregations in a short account of the right of the people in Church maters I have acknowledged that during the time of the Apostles they were present at ordinations at inflicting of penance at Councils that the resolution of maters in debate passed under their knowledg that their consent concurred to put them in force But I have also maintayned that the unity of the Church is the soveraine Law to which all other Lawes though never so much inacted by the Apostles never so evidenty couched in the scriptures are necessarily subordinate as tending onely to maintaine unity by maintaining order in the exercise of those offices for communion wherein the Church subsisteth That in order hereto every Church is a body tending to constitute one body of all Churches consisting of all Christians contayned in one city and the territory of it howsoever cities and their territories may be distinguished as some times meerely upon this account and to this intent and purpose they have been distinguished And by this means I have prescribed that the consent of the people of each Church was never requisite in this consideration because they usually meet together for the service of God â—ut as part of the people of that Church who were to be acquainted with proceedings concerning their Church that they might have reason to rest satisfied in the same I have provided in due place that Lawes expressely provided by the Apostles and recorded in the scriptures for that state of the Church which they saw may and ought to be superseded by the Church in case they prove uselesse to that purpose for which they were provided by that change which succeeds in the state of the Church For how should the soveraign Law of unity take place how should the Church continue one and the same body from the first to the second coming of Christ otherwise Now this interest of the people in maters concerning their Church though related in the scriptures and known by them in point of fact to have had the force of law during the time of the Apostles and accoâ—ingly in the primative Church of the ages next the Apostles yet cannot be said to be any where commanded in point of right for a Law of God to take place in all ages I must therefore prescribe upon this account and doe prescribe That when the world is come into the Church and the whole people of England for example have declared themselves Christians it cannot be any more for the unity of the Church that the consent of the people be required to the validity of those acts which concerne the community of their respective Churches For then would it be no lesse unpossible to constitute one Church of all Churches then it is for all Independents to constitute a Body that may be called the Church of all their congregations each whereof they call a Church And therefore there is no cause why they should demand the same regard to be had to each one of the people when all the people of a City and the bounds thereof concur to constitute the Church of a City and when the chiefe part of Christians within the boundes of a City assembling at once for the service of God might also be acquainted with the proceedings of maters concerning their Church But all this while I am not so simple as to grant that the consent of the people then required to the validity of things done in the Church did consist in plurality of votes having easily huffed out that ridiculous imagination that S. Paul and Barnabas created Elders by votes of the people testified by lifting up their hands the action of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being attributed to themselves not to the people But the consent of the people I meane in body as the people that is a quality distinct from the Clergy in the Church as their superiours and guides in maters concerning the community of it For is there any example in the Scripture that ever they went to the poll or counted noses in passing of maters concerning the Church which the people were acquainted with Is there any such example in all the practice of the primitive Church in which it is acknowledged the same course continued as under the Apostles Ordinations were held in presence of the people that if there were cause they who knew every mans person might object against those who were in nomination if not they might consent by one vote of all that was called their suffrage This being the maner upon this occasion they might did sometimes step before their leaders and demand such as liked them best But so that if they forgot themselves the Clergy was bound not to admit their demand And in case of a Bishop the neighbour Bishops were bound by S. Pauls instructions to Timothy not to lay hands on any for whom they could not answer Tertullian testifieth that mater of excommunication was handled at the assemblies of the Church that is with the knowledge of the people as the case of the incestuous person at Corinth in S. Paul is But neither were all maters handled before the people if the mater of S. Pauls communicating with the Jewes were handled with the Elders before the people were acquainted with it Acts XXI nor is it posible to imagine supposing a Church not to be a congregation but that which I have said that the people can have satisfaction in all maters of that nature when all the world is come into the Church As for Councils it is a thing ridiculous to demand because the people concurred to the resolution of that at Jerusalem Acts XV. therefore that the acts of Councils should passe the people For when the Church of Jerusalem and the whole Church were both the same thing it was no marvaile that the people was to be satisfied in the conclusion of it And by the forme of holding the Spanish Counciles which you have at the begining of the Councils â—â—t appeares that there was provision made for the people to assist and see what was done at their Councils But so unreasonable is it to demand that the people consent to the acts of Councils that it is manifest that there can be no
that hee hath any end but himself nor that hee doth any thing to any other end than to exercise and declare his own perfections If hee do sundry things which of their nature have necessarily such an end as they attain not it is to be said that Gods end never fails in so much as by failing of the end to which they were made they become the subject of some other part of that providence wherein his perfections are exercised and declared Seeing then that all Controversies concerning the Faith have visibly their original from some passages of Scripture which being presupposed true before the foundation of the Church ought to be acknowledged but cannot be constituted by it And seeing that no man that out of the conscience of a Christian hath imbraced all that is written can deny that which hee may have cause to believe to be the sense of the least part of the Scripture without ground to take away that belief It remains that the way to abate Controversies is to rest content with the means that God hath left us to determine the sense of the Scripture not undertaking to tye men further to it than the applying of those means will inferre And truly to imagine that the authority of the Church or the dictate of Gods Spirit should satisfie doubts of that nature without showing the means by which other records of learning are understood and so resolving those doubts which the Scriptures necessarily raise in all them that believe them to be true and the word of God is more than huge cart-loads of Commentaries upon the Scriptures have have been able to do Which being written upon supposition of certain determinations pretended by the Church or certain positions which tending to reform abuses in the Church were taken for testified by Gods Spirit have produced no effect but an utter despair of coming to resolution or at least acknowledgment of resolution in the sense of the Scriptures Whereas let men capable of understanding and managing the means heretofore mentioned think themselves free as indeed they ought to be of all prejudices which the partialities on foot in the Church may have prepossessed them with and come to determine the meaning thereof by the means so prescribed and within those bounds which the consent of the Church acknowledges They shall no sooner discern how the primitive Christianity which we have from the Apostles becomes propagated to us but they shall no less clearly discern the same in their writings And if God have so great a blessing for Christendom as the grace to look upon what hath been written with this freedom there hath been so much of the meaning of the Scripture already discovered by those that have laid aside such prejudices and so much of it is in the way to be discovered every day if the means be pursued as is well to be hoped will and may make partizans think upon the reason they have to maintain partialities in the Church If God have not this blessing in store for Christendom it remains that without or against all satisfaction of conscience concerning the truth of contrary pretenses men give themselves up to follow and professe that which the protection of secular Power shall show them means to live and thrive by In which condition whether there be more of Atheism or of Christianity I leave to him who alone sees all mens hearts to judge CHAP. XXXIV The Dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chief objections against them are questionable In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church HAving thus resolved the main point in doubt it cannot be denied notwithstanding that there are some parts or appertenances of the Question that remain as yet undecided For as long as it is onely said that the Scripture interpreted by the consent of the Church is a sufficient mean to determine any thing controverted in mater of Christian truth there is nothing said till it appear what these Scriptures are and in what records they are contained And truly it is plain that there remains a controversie concerning the credit of some part of those writings which have been indifferently copied and printed for the Old Testament commonly marked in our English Bibles by the title of Apocrypha And no lesse concerning the credit of the Copies wherein they are recorded For though it is certain and evident that the Old Testament hath been derived from the Ebrew the New from the Greek in which at first they were delivered to the Church Yet seeing it appeareth not of it self impossible such changes may have succeeded in the Copies that the Copies which the Jews now use of the Old Testament are further from that which was first delivered than the Vulgar Latine as also the Copies of the Greek Testament now extant It is a very plain case that this doubt remaining it is not yet resolved what are the principles what the means to determine the truth in maters questionable concerning Christianity I must further distinguish two questions that may be made in both these points before I go further For it is evidently one thing to demand whether those writings which I said remain questionable are to be counted part of the Old Testament or not Another whether they are to be read by Christians either for particular information or for publick edification at the assemblies of the Church And likewise as concerning the other point it is one thing to demand what Copy is to be held for authentick another thing to dispute how every Copy is to be used and frequented in the Church To wit whether translations in mother languages are to be had and into what credit they are to be received For it is manifest that the one sense of both questions demands what the body of the Church either may do or ought to do in proposing or prohibiting the said writings or Copies to be used by the members thereof for their edification in Christian piety But the other what credit they have in themselves upon such grounds as are in nature and reason more ancient than the authority of the Church and which the being and constitution thereof presupposeth And as manifest as it is that these are two questions so manifest must it needs remain that the one of them to wit that which concerns the authority of the Church and the effect of it does not belong to this place nor come to be decided but upon supposition of all the means God hath given his Church to be resolved of any truth that becomes questionable As for the other part of both questions though it hath been and may be among them that will not understand the difference between principles and conclusions because it is for
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
AN EPILOGUE TO THE TRAGEDY OF THE Church of England BEING A Necessary Consideration and brief Resolution of the chief Controversies in Religion that divide the Western Church Occasioned by the present Calamity of the CHURCH of ENGLAND In three BOOKS viz. Of I. The Principles of Christian Truth II. The Covenant of Grace III. The Lawes of the Church By HERBERT THORNDIKE LONDON Printed by J. M. and T. R. for J. Martin J. Allestry and T. Dicas and are to be sold at the sign of the BELL in St PAUL's Church-yard M.DC.LIX A PREFACE To all Christian Readers IT cannot seem strange that a man in my case removed by the force of the Warr from the Service of the Church should dedicate his time to the consideration of those Controversies which cause division in the Church For what could I do more to the satisfaction of mine own judgment than to seek a solution what truth it is the oversight whereof hath divided the Church and therefore the sight whereof ought to unite it But that I should publish the result of my thoughts to the world this even to them that cannot but allow my conversing with those thoughts may seem to fall under the Historians censure Sâ—ipsum fatiganâ—o nihil aliud quâm odium quaerere extremae esse dementiae That to take pains to get nothing but displeasure is the extremity of madness Socrates if wee believe his Apology in Plato could never rest for his Genius alwayes putting him upon disputes tending to convict men that they knew not what they thought they knew The displeasure which this got him hee makes the true cause of his death The opinion which I publish being indeed the fruit of more time and leisure of less ingagement to the world than others are under will seem a charge upon those who ingage otherwise And when besides so much interest of this world depends upon the divisions of the Church what am I to expect but Great is Diana of the Ephesians My Apology is this The title of Reformation which the late Warr pretended mentioned onely Episcopacy and the Service The effect of it was a new Confession of Faith a new Catechism a new Directory all new With chapter and verse indeed quoted in the margine but as well over against their own new inventions as over against the Old Faith of the Church This burthen was as easily kicked off by the Congregations as layed on by the Presbyteries As carrying indeed no conviction with it but the Sword and what penalties the Sword should inforce it with Which failing what is come in stead of it to warrant the salvation of Christians but that the Bible is preached which what Heresie disowneth and by them whom the Tryers count godly men Make they what they can of it I from my non age had embraced the Church of England and attained the Order of Priesthood in it upon supposition that it was a true Church and salvation to be had in it and by it Owning nevertheless as the Church of England did own the Church of Rome for a Church in which salvation though more difficult yet might be had and obtained That there is no such thing as a Church by Gods Law in the nature of a Body which this state of Religion requireth is opposite to an Article of my Creed who alwayes thought my self a member of such a Body by being of the Church of England The issue of that which I have published concerning that title of Reformation which the Warr pretended was this That they are Schismaticks that concurr to the breaking or destroying of the Church of England for those causes And the objection there necessarily starting Why the Church of England no Schismaticks in Reforming without the Church of Rome My answer was that the cause of Reforming must justifie the change which it maketh without consent of the Whole Church For the pretense of Infallibility in the Church on the one side the pretense of the Word and Sacraments for marks of the Church on the other side I hold equally frivolous As equally declaring a resolution never to be tried by reason in that which wee alwayes dispute For what dispute remains iâ— the Decrees of the Council of Trent be Infallible If that form of Doctrine and ministring the Sacraments which the Reformation may pretend be marks to distinguish a Church from no Church If they were where there is no such form there are no such marks And therefore no such thing as a Church Nor is it so easie to destroy these doubts in mens judgments as the Laws by which the Church of England stood And if the salvation of a Christian consist in professing the common Christianity as I show you at large shall not the salvation of a Divine consist in professing what he hath attained to believe when hee thinks the exigent of the time renders it necessary to the salvation of Gods people How shall hee otherwise be ministerial to the work of Gods Grace in strengthening them that stand in comforting and helping the weak in raising them that are fallen in resolving the doubtfull without searching the bottom of the cause Nay how shall hee make reparation for the offenses hee may have given by not knowing that which now hee thinks hee knows The causes of division have a certain dependence upon common principles a certain correspondence one with another which when it cannot be declared the satisfaction which a man intends is quite defeated when it is declared that dissatisfaction which the consideration of particulars of less waight causeth must needs cease Whether it were the distrust of my own ability or the love of other imployment or whatsoever it were that diverted mee from considering the consequence of those principles which I alwayes had till I might come to that resolution which now I declare Neither was I satisfied till I had it nor having it till I had declared it And if I be like a man with an arrow in his thigh or like a woman ready to bring forth that is as Ecclesiasticus saith like a fool that cannot hold what is in his heart I am in this I hope no fool of Solomons but with S. Paul a fool for Christs sake Now the mischiefs which division in the Church createth being invaluable all the benefit that I can perceive it yield is this that the offenses which it causeth seem to drown and swallow up as it were that offense which declaring the truth in another time would produce For Unity in the Church is of so great advantage to the service of God and that Christianity from whence it proceedeth that it ought to overshadow and cover very great imperfections in the Laws of the Church All Laws being subject to the like Especially seeing I maintain that the Church by divine institution is in point of right one visible Body consisting in the communion of all Christians in the offices of Gods service and ought by humane administration in point
is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eaâ—ing blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions 178 CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sâ—fficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity p. 163 CHAP. XXVI What is to add to Gods Law What to adde to the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures the man of God perfect How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God 168 CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jewes Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiours and the Pillar of truth inferre it not 175 CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the sufficiencie 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—rnesse of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the termes which they use The limitations of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith 181 CHAP. XXXII Answer to an Objection that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation Those that make the Church Infallible cannot those that make the Scriptures â—â—ear â—nd sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures and controversies of Faith The Interest of the Church of England The pretense of Rushworthes Dialogues that we have no unquestionable Scripture and that tâ—e Tradition of the Church never changes 192 CHAP. XXXI That the Scriptures which wee have are unquestionable That mistakes in Copying are not considerable to the sense and effect of them The meaning of the Hebrew and Greek even of the Prophets determinable to the deciding of Controversies How Religion delivered by Tradition becomes subject to be corrupted 198 CHAP. XXXIV The dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chiâ—fe objections against them are questionâ—ble In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church 207 CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Originall Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Iewes 218 CHAP. XXXIV Of the ancientest Translations of the Bible into Greek first With the Authors and authority of the same Then into the Chaldee Syriack and Latine Exceptions against the Greek and the Samaritane Pentateuch They are helps never thelesse to assure the true reading of the Scriptures though with other Copies whether Jewish or Christian Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testament No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible 224 The CONTENTS of the second Book CHAP. I. TWo parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions p. 1 CHAP. II. Evidence what is the condition of the Covenant of Grace The contract of Baptism The promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to Christs not to Johns Baptism Those are made Christs Disciples as Christians that take up his Cross in Baptism The effects of Baptism according to the Apostles 5 CHAP. III. The exhortations of the Apostles that are drawn from the patterns of the Old Testament suppose the same How the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament are the same how not the same How the new Testament and the New Covenant are both one The free-will of man acteth the same part in dealing about the New-Covenant as about the Old The Gospel a Law 12 CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of catechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no Penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case 17 CHAP. V. The Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles evidenceth that some act of Mans free choice is the condition which it requireth The correspondence between the Old and New Testament inferreth the same So do the errors of Socinians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism Objections deferred 23 CHAP. VI. Justifying faith sometimes consists in believing the truth Sometimes in trust in God grounded upon the truth Sometimes in Christianity that is in imbracing and professing it And that in the Fathers as well as in the Scriptures Of the informed and formed Faith of the Schools 30 CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified do truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or justified is not justifying faith 37 CHAP. VIII The objection from S. Paul We are not justifyed by the Law nor by Works but by Grace and by Faith Not meant of the Gospel and the works that suppose it The question that S. Paul speakes to is of the Law of Moses and the workes of it He sets those workes in the same rank with the works of the Gentiles by the light of nature The civil and outward works of the Law may be done by Gentiles How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ 43 CHAP. IX Of the Faith and Justification of Abraham and the Patriarkes according to the Apostles
our sinnes imputable to Christ nor his sufferings to us formally and personally but as the meritorious causes which satisfaction answerâ—â—h The effect of it the Covenant of Grace as well as helpe to perform it The Fathers saved by the Faith of Christ to come The Gospel a new Law The prâ—perâ—y of satisfaction and punishment in Christs sufferings Of the sense of the Catholick Church 245 CHAP. XXX God might have reconciled man to himselfe without the coming of Christ The promise of â—â—â— Gâ—spel dâ—pend as well upon his active as passive obedience Christ need 〈…〉 pâ—iâ—â—s that we might not The opinion that maketh justiâ—â—â—g 〈…〉 â—rust in God not true Yet not prejudicial to the Faith The dâ—câ—â—â— of the Council of Trent and the doctrine of the Schoole how it is not preâ—udicial to the Faith As also that of Socinus 254 CHAP. XXXI The state of the question concerning the perseverance of those that are once justified Of three senses one true one inconsistent wiâ—h the faith the third neither true nor yet destructive to the Faith Evidence from â—â—â— writings of the Apostles From the Old Testament The grace of Proâ—heâ—â—e when it presupposeth sanctifying grace Answer to some texts and of S. Pauls mâ—aâ—â—ng in the VII of the Romans Of the Polygamy of the Fathers What assurance of Grace Christians may have The Tradition of the Church 266 CHAP. XXXII How the fulfilling of Gods Law is possible how impossible for a Christian Of the difference between mortall and veniall sinne What love of God and of our neighbour was necessary under the Old Testament Whether the Sermon in the Mount correct the false interpretation of the â—ewes or inhanse the obligatin of the Law Of the difference between matter of Precept and matter of Counsail and the Perfection of Christians 285 CHAP. XXXIII Whether any workes of Christians be satisfactory for sinne and meritorious of heaven or not The recovery of Gods grace for a Christian fallen from it a worke of labour and time The necessity and essicacy of Penance to that purpose according to the Scriptures and the practice of the Church Merit by virtue of Gods promise necessary The Catholick Church agrees in it the present Church of Rome allowes merit of justice 300 The CONTENTS of the third Book CHAP. I. THe Society of the Church founded upon the duty of communicating in the Offices of Gods service The Sacrament of the Eucharist among those Offices proper to Christianity What opinions concerning the presence of Christs body and Blood in the Eucharist are on foot page 1 CHAP. II. That the Natural substance of the Elements remaines in the Sacrament That the Body and Blood of Christ is neverthâ—lâ—sse present in the same when it is received noâ— by the receiving of it The eating of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Câ—â—sâ— necessarily requireth the same This causes no contradâ—ction nor improperty â—â— the words of our Lord. 3 CHAP. III. That the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist depends not upon the living 〈◊〉 of him that receives but upon the true profession of Christianity in the 〈◊〉 thâ—â— câ—lâ—brates The Scâ—iâ—tureâ— that are alleged for the dependence of 〈◊〉 the communication of the properties They conclude not the sense of them b◠〈◊〉 â—â—ey are alleged How the Scripture confineth the flesh of Christ to the 〈◊〉 16 CHAP. IV. The opinion which maketh the Consecration to be done by rehearsing the operative words That our Lord consecrated by Thanksgiving The Form of it in all Lâ—â—urgies together with the consent of the Fathers Evidence that there is â—o Tradition of the Church for the abolishing of the Elements 23 CHAP. V. It cannot be proved by the Old Testament that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice How by the New Testament it may be so accounted Four reasons thereof depending upon the nature of Justifying Faith premised The consent of the Catholick Church The concurrence of the Church of England to the premises 38 CHAP. VI. The reason of the Order by which I proceed brings me to the Baptism of Infants in the next place The power of the Keyes seen in granting Baptism as well as in communicating the Eucharist Why Socinians make Baptism indifferent Why Antinomians make it a mistake to Baptize The grounds upon which I shake off both With answer to some objections 53 CHAP. VII The ground of Baptizing Infants Originall sinne though not instituted till Christ rose again No other cure for it Infants of Christians may be Disciplâ—â— are holy The effect of Circumcision under the Law inferreth the effect of Baptism under the Gospel 58 CHAP. VIII What is alledged to impeach Tradition for Baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at years was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants get who dye baptized â—5 CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of 〈◊〉 by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministry of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offences Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth 73 CHAP. X. The Sâ—cts of the Montanists Novatians Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doâ—h the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the primitive Church That no sinne can be cured withoâ—â— the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands 86 CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem the debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assuraâ—ce of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England 98 CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely boaily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same 106 CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimoniall causes Mariage of one with one iâ—solubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church 114 CHAP. XIV Scripture alledged to prove the bond of Mariage insoluble in case of adultery uneffectual S. Paul and our Lord speak both to one purpose according to S. Jerome and S. Austine The contrary opinion more reasonable and more general in the Church Why the Church may restrain the innocent party from marying again The
The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceedings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts â—f the Church And in the use of the Scriptures 368 CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the offect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians ceaseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclesiastical Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Inâ—erest of the state in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimonial causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon Episcopacy but upon acts of the Secular Powers of Christendom 381 OF THE PRINCIPLES OF Christian Truth The First BOOK CHAP. I. All agree that Reason is to decide controversies of Faith The objection that Faith is taught by Gods Spirit answered What Reason decideth questions of Faith The resolution of Faith ends not in the light of Reason but in that which Reason evidenceth to come from Gods messengers THe first thing that we are to question in the beginning is Whether there be any means to resolve by the use of reason those controverâ—â—es which cause division in the Church Which is all one as if we undertook to enquire whether there be any such skill or knowledg as that for which men call themselvs Divines For if there be it must be the same in England as at Rome And if it have no principles as no principles it can have unlesse it can be resolved what those principles are then is it a bare name signifying nothing But if there be certain principles which all parties are obliged to admit that discourse which admits no other will certainly produce that resolution in which all shall be obliged to agree And truely this hope there is left that all parties do necessarily suppose that there is means to resolve by reason all differences of Faith Inasmuch as all undertake to perswade all by reason to be of the judgment of each one and would be thought to have reason on their side when so they do and that reason is not done them when they are not believed There are indeed many passages of Scripture which say that Faith is only taught by the Spirit of God Mat. XVI 17. Blessed art thou Peter son of Ionas for flesh and blood revealed not this to thee but my Father which is in the heavens II. 25. I thank thee O Father Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes 1 Cor. I. 26 27 28. For Brethren you see your calling that not many wise according to the flesh not many mighty not many noble But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen to shame the wise The weak things of the world hath God chosen to shame the strong The ignoble and despicable things of the world hath God chosen and the things that are not to confound the things that are John VI. 45. It is written in the Prophets And they shall be all taught of God Heb. VIII 10. Jer. XXXI 33. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel in those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Laws in their mindes and write them in their hearts These and the like Scriptures then asâ—ribing the reason why wee believe to the work of Gods Spirit seem to leave no room for any other reason why wee should believe But this difficulty is easie for him to resolve that diâ—â—inguishes between the reason that moveth in the nature of an object and that motion which the active cause produceth For the motion of an object supposes that consideration which discovers the reason why wee are to believe But the motion of the Holy Ghost in the nature of an active cause proceeds without any notice that wee take of it According to the saying of our Lord to Nicodemus John 111. 8. The winde bloweth where it listeth and a man hears the noise of it but cannot tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth So is every one that is born of the spirit For wee must know that there may be sufficient reason to evict the truth of Christianity and yet prove ineffectual to induce the most part either inwardly to believe or outwardly to professe it The reason consists in two things For neither is the mater of Faith evident to the light of reason which wee bring into the world with us And the Crosse of Christ which this profession drawes after it necessarily calls in question that estate which every man is setled upon in the world So that no marvel if the reasons of believing fail of that effect which for their part they are sufficient to produce Interest diverting the consideration or intercepting the consequence of such troublesom truth and the motives that inforce it The same is the reason why the Christian world is now to barren of the fruits of Christianity For the profession of it which is all the Laws of the world can injoyn is the common privilege by which men hold their estates Which it is no marvel those men should make use of that have neither resolved to imbrace Christ with his Crosse nor considered the reason they have to do it who if they should stick to that which they professe and when the protection of the Law failes or act according to it when it would be disadvantage to them in the world so to do should do a thing inconsequent to their own principles which carried them no further than that profession which the Law whereby they hold their estates protecteth The true reason of all Apostasy in all trials As for the truth of Christianity Can they that believe a God above refuse to believe his messengers because that which they report stands not in the light of any reason to evidence it Mater of Faith is evidently credible but cannot be evidently true Christianity supposes sufficient reason to believe but not standing upon evidence in the thing but upon credit of report the temptation of the Crosse may easily defeat the effect of it if the Grace of Christ and the operation of the Holy Ghost interpose not Upon this account the knowledg of Gods truth revealed by Christ may be the work of his Grace according to the Scriptures for that so it is I am not obliged neither have I any reason here to suppose being to come in
the Church to be the onely infallible Judge of all Controversies of Faith necessarily suppose that the Church is by Gods appointment that is Jure divino a Corporation Society or Body of men visible though not Civil because standing upon Gods will revealed in order to the happinesse of the world to come In which Society because in no Society all that are Interessed can act for themselvs it behooveth that there be a publick Authority vested in some persons or Bodies the Act whereof may oblige the whole And thus it may and must be understood that the Church is maintained to be Judge in Controversies of Faith by the definitive sentence of those that have authority to oblige the Body Whether Pope or Council wee dispute not here or what else may be imagined For that as all other Controversies in Religion is to be decided by the resolution of the point now in hand what is the means to determine by reason all such differences Which if it could not be decided without supposing whose authority is to tye the Church there could be no end of differences in the Church whatsoever there will be Here is then an opinion famous enough that the Church is indowed with a gift of Infallability by virtue whereof whatsoever sentence is passed by them that are authorized on behalf of the Church becomes matter of Faith and obliges all men to receive it by the same reason for which they receive the Christian Faith Now they who in opposition to this opinion do maintain the Scriptures to be the onely Judge in Controversies of Faith do involve in this opposition an equivocation manifest enough For it is manifest that their intent is to render a reason by this position why they submit not to that sentence which condemneth their positions in the name of the Church To wit because it is contrary to the Scriptures And further why they with-draw themselves from the communion of that Church which condemneth them and joyn in communion grounded upon the profession of the positions condemned maintaining themselves thereupon to be the true Church of God and those that condemne them the corrupt and counterfeit Whereby it appeareth that in effect they do maintain that there is no Judge provided by God to be visible in his Church with the gift of Infallible But that they are themselves and ought to be Judges to condemne all sentences given against the Scripture by any authority established in the Church By which means the Scripture becomes no more the Judge but the Rule or the Law by which men are to judge Whether they are to stand to such sentences as are given in the name of the Church or not Now if the Scripture be the Law or the Rule by which Controversies of Faith are to be judged there will be no pretense to exclude any means that may serve as evidence to clear the meaning of it And therefore there will be no cause why the Tradition of the Church should not be joyned with the Scripture in deciding Controversies of Faith Not disputing hitherto whether or no it contain any thing that the Scripture containeth not to clear and to determine the sense of the Scripture Whereas they that maintain the sentence of the present Church to be the reason of believing can no way resolve their belief into the Tradition of the Catholick Church Because that supposes only the act of our Lord and his Apostles delivering to the Church that which it holdeth Which who so supposeth can allege no other reason why hee believeth And therefore the sentence of the present Church cannot be the reason why any man should believe that which there was reason from the beginning to believe without it They who to exclude the Tradition of the Church state this position upon these terms That all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures pretending to limit the generality of the question put it upon an issue not to be tryed till wee have resolved what means there is to determine the meaning of the Scripture For to be necessary to salvation is to be true and something more So that nothing can appear necessary to salvation till it can appear to be true Nor appear to be true untill it can be resolved what means there is to distinguish between true and false Besides how unlimited this limitation is may appear by this Because whatsoever is clear is said to be clear in relation to some sight And there is so much difference between the sight of several Christians that nothing can be said to be clear to all because it is clear to some And that which is not clear to all whose salvation is concerned in it what availes it those to whom it is not clear Now I suppose those that advance these termes will not grant that nothing is necessary to salvation that may be questioned by an argument out of the Scripture which all Christians cannot answer Knowing that such things as themselvs hold necessary to salvation may be assalted by such reasons out of the Scripture as they do not think all Christians fit to resolve Besides they do not pretend that all things necessary to salvation are clear in the Scripture of themselvs but by consequence of reason which may make them clear Now hee that would draw true consequences from the Scripture had need be well informed of the mater of that Scripture which hee drawes into consequence And to that information how can it appear that any thing is more necessary than the Tradition of the Church Therefore though I say not yet whether it be true or false that all things necessary to salvation are clearly contained in the Scriptures yet at the present I say that this is not the prime truth which must give a reason of all that followes upon it but demands a reason to be given for it by those principles upon which the resolution of all maters of Faith depends All this while wee agree upon the supposition that the Church is a Society of men subsisting by Gods revealed will distinct from all other Societies Because as I said those that have departed from the Church of Rome have hitherto pretended their own communion to be the true Church For if it be said that they do not or scarce ever did agree in communion one with another so that they can pretend to constitute all one Church That is not because they do not think that they ought all to constitute one Church but because they agree not upon the conditions Each part thinking that the other doth not believe as those whom they may communicate with ought to believe But this is now manifestly contradicted by two opinions among us though the one can be no â—ect the other as yet appears not to be one The first is that of them that think themselves above Ordinances the Communion of the Church onely obliging proficients and every perfect Christian being to himself a Church Of these
I said there can be no sect as communicating in nothing visible as Christians But I need not have recourse to such an obscure Sect as this For the same is necessarily the opinion of all the sect that makes every Congregation Independent and Sovereign in Church maters For if particular Congregations be not obliged to joyn in communion to the constitution of one Church wee may perhaps understand the collection of all Congregations to be signified at once by the name of the Church but wee cannot imagine that the Church so understood can be obliged by any sentence that can passe in it And if this opinion be true it must be acknowledged as of late years it hath been disputed amongst us that there is no crime of Schisme in violating the unity of the Church but when a breach is made in a Congregation obliged to communicate one with another in Church maters For where there is no bond of unity what crime can there be in dissolving it This is then the ground of all Independent Congregations that there is no such thing as the Church understanding by the name of the Church a Society or Corporation founded upon a Charter of Gods which signification the addition of Catholick and Apostolick in our Creed hath hitherto been thought to determine But there is a second opinion in the Leviathan who allowes all points of Ecclesiastical Power in Excommunicating Ordaining and the rest to the Soveraign Powers that are Christian Though before the Empire was Christian hee granteth that the Churches that is to say the several Bodies of Christians that were dwelling in several Cities had and exercised some parts of the same right by virtue of the Scriptures As you may see pag. 274-279 287-292 Making that right which the Scriptures give them for the time to eschete to the Civil Power when it is Christian and dissolving the said Churches into the State or Common-wealth which once Christian is from thenceforth the Church And this I suppose upon this ground though hee doth not expresly allege it to that purpose Because the Scripture hath not the force of a Law obliging any man in justice to receive it till Soveraign Powers make it such to their subjects but onely contains good advice which hee that will may imbrace for his souls health and hee that will not at his peril may refuse Thus hee teacheth pag. 205. 281-287 If therefore the act of Soveraign Power give the Scripture the force of Law then hath it a just claim to all rights and Powers founded upon the Scripture as derived from it and therefore vested originally in it Hence followeth that desperate inference concerning the right of Civil Power in mater of Religion not for a Christian but for an Apostate to publish that if the Soveraign command a Christian to renounce Christ and the faith of Christ hee is bound to do it with his mouth but to believe with his heart And therefore much more to obey whatsoever hee commandeth in Religion besides whether to believe or to do The Reason Because in things not necessary to salvation the obedience due by Gods and mans Law to the Soveraign must take place Now there is nothing necessary to salvation saith hee but to believe that our Lord Jesus is the Christ All that the Scripture commandeth besides this is but the Law of Nature which when the Civil Law of every Land hath limited whosoever observes that Law cannot fail of fulfilling the Law of Nature These things you have pag. 321-330 The late learned Selden in his first book de Synedriis Judaeorum maintaining Erastus his opinion that there is no power of Excommunicating in the Church by Gods Law grants that which could not be denied that the Church did exercise such a Power before Constantine but not by any charter of Gods but by free consent of Christians among themselves pag. 243 244. Which if hee will follow the grain of his own reason hee is consequently to extend to the power of Ordaining and to all other rights which the Church as a Corporation founded by God can claim by Gods Law And upon this ground hee may dissolve the Church into the Common-wealth and make the power of it an eschere to the Civil Power that is Christian with lesse violence than the Leviathan doth Because whatsoever Corporations or Fraternities are bodied by sufferance of the State dissolve of themselves at the will of it and resolve the powers which they have created into the disposition of it And that this was his intent whoso considereth what hee hath written of the indowment of the Church in his History of Tithes of Ordinations in the second book de Synedriis of the right of the Civil Power in limiting causes of divorce in his Vxor Ebraica hath reason to judge as well as I who have heard him say that all pretense of Ecclesiastical Power is an imposture I say not that hee or the rest of Erastus his followers make themselves by the same consequence liable to those horrible consequences which the Leviathan admits But I say that they are to bethink themselves what right they will assign the Civil Power in determining controversies in Religion that may arise And what assurance they can give their subjects that their salvation is well provided for standing to their decrees Besides I was to mention these opinions here that those who take the sentence of the Church to be the first ground of Faith into which it is lastly resolved may see that they are to prove the Church to be a Corporation by divine Right before they can challenge any such power for it For that which is once denied it will be ridiculous to take for granted without proving it And whatsoever may be the right of the Church in deciding controversies of Faith it cannot be proved without evidence for this charter of the Church as you shall see by and by more at large CHAP. III. That neither the sentence of the Church nor the dictate of Gods Spirit can be the reason why the Scriptures are to be received No man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit without knowing that hee is a true Christian Which supposeth the truth of the Scripture The motives of Faith are the reason why the Scriptures are to be believed And the consent of Gods people the reason that evidences those motives to be infallibly true How the Scriptures are believed for themselves How a Circle is made in rendering a reason of the Faith The Scriptures are Gods Law to all to whom they are published by Gods act of publishing them But Civil Law by the act of Soveraign Powers in acting Christianity upon their Subjects IT would not be easie to finde an entrance into such a perplexed Question had not the dispute of it started another concerning the reason why wee believe the Scriptures whether upon the credit of the Church or for themselves or whether nothing but the Spirit of God speaking to each mans heart
words of S. Augustine contra Epistolam fundamenti cap. V. which alwaies have a place in this dispute though I can as yet admit S. Augustine no otherwise than as a particular Christian and his saying as a presumption that hee hath said no more than any Christian would have said in the common cause of all Christians against the Manichees Ego Evangelio non crederem saith hee nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae moveret authoritas I would not believe or have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholick Church moved mee For some men have imployed a great deal of learning to show that moveret stands for movisset as in many other places both of S. Augustine and of other Africane Writers And without doubt they have showed it past contradiction and I would make no doubt to show the like in S. Hierome Sidonius and other Writers of the decaying ages of the Latine tongue as well as in the Africane Writers if it were any thing to the purpose For is not the Question manifestly what it is that obligeth that man to believe who as yet believeth not Is it not the same reason that obliges him to become and to be a Christian Therefore whether moveret or movisset all is one The Question is whether the authority of the Church as a Corporation that is of those persons who are able to oblige the Church would have moved S. Austine to believe the Gospel because they held it to be true Or the credit of the Church as of so many men of common sense attesting the truth of those reasons which the Gospel tenders why wee ought to believe What is it then that obliged S. Austine to the Church The consent of people and nations that authority which miracles had begun which hope had nourished charity increased succession of time settled from S. Peter to the present the name and title of Catholick so visible that no Heretick durst show a man the way to his Church demanding the way to the Catholick So hee expresseth it cap. 111. And what is this in English but the conversion of the Gentiles foretold by the Prophets attested by God and visibly settled in the Unity of the Church Whereupon hee may boldly affirm as hee doth afterwards that if there were any word in the Gospel manifestly witnessing Manes to be the Apostle of Christ hee would not believe the Gospel any more For if the reason for which hee had once believed the Church that the Gospel is true because hee saw it verified in the being of the Church should be supposed false there could remain no reason to oblige us to take the Gospel for true All that remaines for the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation by this account will be this That it is more discretion for him that is in doubt of the truth of Christianity to take the reason of it from the Church that is from those whom the Church trusteth to give it than from particular Christians who can by no means be presumed to understand it so well as they may do For otherwise supposing a particular Christian sets forth the same reasons which the Church does how can any man not be bound to follow him that is bound to follow the Church So that the reasons which both allege being contained in the Scriptures the Church is no more in comparison of the Scriptures than the Samaritane in comparison of our Lord himself when her fellow-citizens tell her John IV. 12. Wee believe no more for thy saying For wee our selves have heard and know that this is of a truth the Saviour of the World the Christ For the reasons for which our Lord himself tells us that wee are to believe are contained in the Scriptures But by the premises it will be most manifest that the same Circle in discourse is committed by them who resolve the reason why they believe into the dictate of the Spirit as into the decree of the Church For the question is not now of the effective cause whether or no in that nature a man is able to imbrace the true Faith without the assistance of Gods Spirit or not Which ought here to remain questionable because it is to be tried upon the grounds upon which here wee are seeking And therefore that Faith which is grounded upon revelation from God and competent evidence of the same is to be counted divine supernatural Faith without granting whatsoever wee may suppose any supernatural operation of Gods Spirit to work it in the nature of an effective cause which must remain questionable supposing the reason why wee believe the Scriptures But in the nature of an object presenting unto the understanding the reason why we are to believe it is manifest by the premises that no man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit that knoweth not the truth of the Scriptures If therefore hee allege that hee knowes the Scriptures to be true because Gods Spirit saith so to his Spirit hee allegeth for a reason that which hee could not know but supposing that for granted which hee pretendeth to prove To wit That the dictate of his own Spirit is from Gods Spirit Indeed when the motives of Faith proceed from Gods Spirit in Moses and the Prophets in our Lord and his Apostles witnessing by the works which they do their Commission as well as their message who can deny that this is the light of Gods Spirit Again when wee govern our doings by that which wee believe and not by that which wee see who will deny that this is the light of Faith and of Gods Spirit But both these considerations take place though wee suppose the mater of Faith to remain obscure in it self though to us evidently credible for the reasons God showes us to believe that hee saith it If any man seek in the mater of Faith any evidence to assure the conscience in the nature of an object or reason why wee are to believe that is not derived from the motives of Faith outwardly attesting Gods act of revealing it hee falls into the same inconvenience with those who believe their Christianity because the Church commends it and again the Church because Christianity commends it As for that monstrous imagination that the Scripture is not Law to oblige any man in justice to believe it before the Secular Powers give it force over their subjects Supposing for the present that which I said before that it is all one question whether Christianity or whether the Scriptures oblige us as Law or not Let mee demand whether our Lord Christ and his Apostles have showed us sufficient reasons to convince us that wee are bound to believe and become Christians If not why are wee Christians If so can wee be obliged and no Law to oblige us supposing for the present though not granting because it is not true that by refusing Christianity sufficiently proposed a man comes not under sin but onely comes not from under it but
God delivered to the Church by the Apostles commanding them so to live For that which was as difficult as impossible to have been introduced without conviction of the will of God as the rest of Christianity of necessity must go for a part of it But that in such variety of mens fannies reasons and inclinations the Church consisting from the beginning of all Nations and dispersed all over the world should of their own inclination not swayed by any information of Gods will received with Christianity agree in the same Lawes and Rulers submitting to the exercise of the same Power upon themselves is as impossible as that the world should consist of the casual concurse of atomes according to Democritus and Epicurus The name of the Church without peradventure was first used to signifie the whole body of Gods people in the Wildernesse when they might be and were called together and assembled upon their common occasions which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies After which time the people continuing still one and the same by virtue of the same Lawes then received and the Powers placed in their Ruler Not onely the whole people but such parts of it as resorted to the same Government have still born and do bear the same name The Synagogue of Libertines Cyrenaeans Alexandrians Cilicians and Asians by example Acts VI. 9. which name first belongs to the respective Bodies of Jewes that subsisted at Rome Cyrene or Alexandria in Cilicia or Asia And consequently by Metonymy to the Places where such of those Bodies as chanced to be at Jerusalem might assemble themselves And to so many of those Bodies as being at Jerusalem did assemble at those Places Now no Christian can doubt that the Body of Christians succeeds in the stead of Gods ancient people And therefore the name of Gods Church when it stands without limitation signifies no lesse As when our Lord saith Mat. XVI 18. Vpon this rock will I found my Church Whatsoever the Disciples then conceived the Church should be our Lord that knew all by the name of it meant all that duly beares the name And therefore when hee saith once again Mat. XVIII 17. Tell it to the Church It is strange there should be Christians that should think hee means the Jewes and their Rulers And that the precept concernes Christians no longer now they have left the Jewes Though it is true a man cannot tell his cause to the whole Church but to that part of it to which hee can resort which is called by the name of the Whole as I said even now of the Synagogue S. Paul to the Colossians II. 24 25. calling the Church the Body of Christ saith That hee by the dispensation of God towards them which hee is trusted with is become the minister of the Church to wit as Angels are ministers of the Church because ministers of God towards it And therefore minister of the whole Church which is the Body of Christ not of any particular Church as if an Apostle could be bound to execute his office according to the discretion of any Church which for Gods cause hee attends As all Ministers are bound to execute their Office according to the will of them whose Ministers they are It is therefore the whole Church in which God hath set Apostles Evangelists Prophets and the use of the Graces rehearsed 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 11. Because the Office of these Graces can by no means be confined either to any particular Church or to any part of the whole Church The name of the Church signifies the same thing again Eph. I. 22. III. 21. V. 23-32 While all Christendome was contained in the Church at Jerusalem the name of the Church is so used Acts II. 47. V. 11. VIII 1 3. that it is no mater whether wee understand by it the whole Church or the Church of Jerusalem The reason Because all right and power that can at any time be found vested in the whole Church was then as fully in the Church at Jerusalem as it can be at any time in the whole Church though in respect of a Body never so much greater than it As a childe is as much a man the day of his birth as the day of his death and a tree as much as a tree when it growes one as when it is come to the height But Christianity being propagated among Jewes and Gentiles as wee reade of the Churches of Judaea Samaria and Galilee Acts IX 31. and must needs understand the Epistles to the Ebrewes to have been written to Churches consisting onely of Ebrewes as those of S. Peter and that of S. James which mentions the Elders of the Church James V. 14. So the Churches of the Gentiles in S. Paul Rom. XVI 4. wee easily understand to be the Churches of Asia 1 Cor. XVI 9. Apoc. I. 11. the Churches of Galâ—â—ia 1 Cor. XVI 1. the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. VIII 1. and the rest that were visible in S. Paâ—ls time Now suppose for the present that these Churches mentioned by the Apostles were no more than so many Congregations as our Independents would have it Seeing they deny not so many Churches to be so many Bodies what reason can they give why the name of the Church when it stands for the whole Church should not signifie the like There is a prerogative attributed to the whole Church by S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 25. when hee calls it the base and pillar of Truth For that this should be said of any particular Church it were too ridiculous to imagine Can the Church bear this attribute if it be not capable of doing any act that may verifie it And if it be not a Body what act can it do In fine the correspondence between Gods ancient people and his new Israel according to his Spirit seems to require That as the Religion of the Jewes and not any Civil Power of the Nation makes them all one Body at this day in point of fact by sufferance of Soveraignes because they were once so in point of right So the Religion of Christians should make them one Body in point of right how many Bodies soever they are burst into in point of fact by their own wantonnesse For the Independents exception which I spoke of can be of no force unlesse they will make it appear that all those Churches that are mentioned in the writings of the Apostles did assemble in one place Not that if this could be made to appear they had done their businesse But because if it do not appear their plea is peremptorily barred Wee reade then of M M M soules added in one day to CXX of the Church at Jerusalem Acts I. 15. II. 41. To these were added or with these they became VM Acts IV. 4. To whom were added multitudes of men and women Acts II. 47. V. 14. These assembled daily in private to serve God as Christians as well as in
it is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
when wee see persons authorized in behalf of their particular Churches do an act which shall oblige those respective Churches For by the same reason persons authorized on behalf of all Churches shall be able to do an act that shall oblige all Churches Which is all that I claim when I maintain that by Gods Law all Churches are to make one Church When Matthias was Ordained an Apostle in stead of Judas I demand why that Assembly of Apostles and Disciples at which this was done should not be counted a General Council having showed that this Church of Jerusalem was then the whole Church and the creating of an Apostle whom all were to acknowledge in that quality for the future being an act concerning the Whole I will not say that the act of creating the seven Acts VI. concerned the whole Church being content that it remaine in question whether the intent of it were such or not But in as much as those that do not allow that they intended to create an Order of Deacons which all Churches were to make use of afterwards do not question that if they did intend it the whole Church must needs stand obliged by it I am not afraid to reckon this Assembly also in the rank of General Councils As for that of Acts XV. it appeareth sufficiently that those who founded the Church of Antiochia had their first commission from the Apostles not onely by the first preaching of the Gospel there and the sending of Barnabas Acts XI 19-26 but chiefly in that those which taught the necessity of observing Moses Law are disowned as having no commission so to teach Acts XV. 24. For as for S. Paul who challengeth an immediate commission from our Lord Gal. I. 1. it is easily granted because hee was made an Apostle Yet in that hee allegeth the verifying of it to S. Peter and S. James and the Churches of Judaea who having never seen his face glorified God for him Gal. I. 18-24 in that hee is brought by Barnabas who acted by commission from the Apostles to Antiochia and upon this beginning was sent by the Holy Ghost that is by Prophesie to do the office of an Apostle with Barnabas Acts XII 1 2 3. in that hee is owned by the Apostles afterwards Acts XV. 12. Gal. II. 1 7-10 which makes it more than probable that both these Texts speak of one and the same time of S. Pauls coming to Jerusalem in these regards I say it appeares sufficiently that the Church was to own him for an Apostle upon the owning his immediate calling from heaven by the rest of the Apostles Wherefore when wee see those that were trusted on behalf of the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which had been founded by those that were sent by the Holy Ghost from thence resort to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem for an end of the difference in debate well may I with those that have gone afore mee reckon this meeting among the General Councils the cause of it concerning the whole no part concerned that it obliged not I will not say so much of the meeting of S. Paul with S. James Acts XXI 18. though the Elders there mentioned are thought to be those that had the chief authority in the neighbouring Churches as well as in that of Jerusalem And though S. Paul by this time was become rhe Head of many more Churches of his own foundation than afore Because of the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles and the founding of other Churches by this time which could not be tied by the result of this meeting further than the mater of it was inforced by the decree formerly made of which among the Apostles there ought no doubt to be made Let no man expect that I inferre upon these premises that the Church is bound by a positive Law of God to call Councils and to decide all emergencies by the vote of them much lesse that it is not able to do this otherwise I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common service of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needes maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common service of God and the unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it but especially that profession which it supposeth But I intend not therefore to tye the Church to inflame persecution by holding such Assemblies as may give occasion of sinister suspicions to secular Powers that protect not Christianity when the effect of such Assemblies is to be obtained without assembling For whosoever they be that ought to be authorized in behalf of particular Churches to constitute a Council they can have no other authority than their respective Churches do challenge It cannot be imagined that being present in one place together and seeing one anothers faces can purchase them that authority which they cannot have at home to conclude the whole by the consent of the Council The presence of Representatives affords infinite opportunities of better information one from another by debate one with another which distance of place allowes not otherwise But yet in maters concerning the state of the Whole or any great part of it means of information for the maintenance of that confederacy wherein I maintain the Society of the Church to stand is to be had by daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives which wee call Councils A thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils is a way of farre greater dispatch but the expresse consent of Churches obtained upon the place is a more certain foundation of peace in regard of the many questions that may arise as well in the discharge of that trust which Representatives are charged with as in the respect allowed their votes by the Council As it may easily appear by the difficulties that have risen about executing the decrees of Councils And therefore the power of them is meerly derivâ—tive from their respective Churches tending to supply those difficulties of bringing the whole to agreement which distance of place createth That therefore which I allege here is this That the succession of Pastors alleged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceed wholey upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole Which is the true reason of
the visibility of the Church and the assurance that every particular Christian might have during this intelligence and correspondence that holding communion with his own Pastor hee held the true Faith together with the Unity of the Catholick Church Neither putting trust in man which God curseth nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures but trusting his own common sense as well for the means of conveying to him the mater as the motives of Christianity For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian for S. Augustine and Optatus to allege the Church of Rome and the succession from the Apostles for evidence that the Faith of those Hereticks was contrived by themselves that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church Because supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding other Churches founded and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof the people to stand bound rather to follow the original consent of the whole from whence they received their Christianity than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole in the judgment of the whole This being the true ground for the authority of Councils might and did take effect without assembling of Councils S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome to write to the Churches of Gaule to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles because hee had joyned with the Novatians To the Spanish Bishops owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places notwithstanding that upon false suggestions they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them Epist LXV LXVI Could any man in his right senses have attempted this had it not been received among Christians which hee alleges that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors whom the communion of the Church disowneth whether assembled in Council or not The acts of Councils themselves such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis depending upon the authority of the Churches of Rome and Carthage that concurred not to them in presence If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time For if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once without any obligation to the resolution of other Congregations then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation that the ruling part of them cannot faile Or rathâ—r into that which hee hath of himself and of the Spirit of God guiding his choice to those that shall not faile They presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God without declaring what Christianity they professe for the condition upon which they obtain it need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth God who requireth the profession of a true Faith in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit hath provided the communion of his Church for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth That it is presumption in them to oversee this no imposture in the Church to challenge it Tertullians reason determines The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them To this after other allegations hee sets his rest up on this one that error is infinite truth one and the same That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake in which all Christians agree They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church provided by God to preserve and propagate it against our Independent Congregations Thus Tertullian de Praescript XXVIII There have been some Disputers of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception against the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome Hee pleadeth not that the Catholicks ought not but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures being able to condemne them without the Scriptures And they plead that the Reformation not standing to those Pastors whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles may be condemned without Scripture as not holding the truth who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors Which is to demand of those of the Reformation for an end of all debates first to acknowledge those Pastors and that which they teach then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture which that which they reach alloweth or requireth But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infallible ground for the truth of that which it determineth And therefore to be accepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity or the Scriptures Which I showed you already to be false It shall therefore suffice mee to say that those men consider not the difference between the plea of the Reformation and that of those Hereticks For they acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth where they served their turn made no scruple to say when it was for their purpose that they knew not the depth of Gods minde which themselves by some secret way having attained to know were therefore called Gnosticks That they imparted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike when that served their turne That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect and revealed not that secret whereby they promised their salvation but by incklings These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript XXII and Irenaeus III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles Whereas those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do Without cause indeed For what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret to them and by them who tender no evidence for it to that which the visibility of Christianity and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles or their writings nor can expect salvation by any other meanes And therefore are manifestly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides provided the trial
But hee that complaineth of that will be bound to advance some other meaning of those texts which may be free from contradiction both to the Rule of Faith and to Historical truth which common sense justifieth And yet admit no mention of publick Penance in the Church no intent to speak of it in all the Scriptures there alleged Which perhaps will be too hard to do Further I labor not I will suppose no man so wilfull as to dispute the right of excluding from the Communion of the Church granting a power of limiting the conditions upon which it is to be restored to them who forfeited it And this is visible It was but a mater of LXX years after the decease of S. John according to Eusebius his Chronicle that Montamis appeared to demand that Adulterers might not be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon Penance That those that had married the second time might not communicate That the rule of Fasting might be stricter than was in use That it might not be lawfull to fly from persecution for the Faith It is manifest that these were his pretenses by Tertullian that maintaines them being seduced with the opinion of inspirations and revelations granted him and his partizans to that purpose These pretenses were afterwards in part revived at Rome by Novatianus to get himself the Bishoprick there by excluding from Penance and reconciliation those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius It appeareth also that those men alleged for themselves the very passages of the Apostles which I allege to my intent Neither can it appear that ever any son of the Church did contradict them by saying that the Apostles meant nothing of Penance as they imagined And now let all men judge whether the Church have reason to hold this evidence of Penance and by consequence of its own being a Church Was Epiphanius and all that writ against the Novatians troubled to no purpose at the VI of the Ebrews when those Schismaticks alleging it for themselves might have been silenced by denying that it concerned Penance Why did not the Church allege that the sin unto death 1 John V. 17. is no such thing as Apostasy from Christianity when the Novatians alleged it to prove that Apostates were not to be reconciled to the Church How came it to passe that there was so much doubt made in the Church of Rome of admitting the Epistle to the Ebrews for Canonical Scripture witnesse S. Jerome Epist ad Dardanum as thinking that it did absolutely contradict the re-admitting of Apostates which had been practised in that Church before Montanus Tertullian of all men was troubled without cause that the incestuous person whom hee supposes to be excommunicated at Corinth by S. Pauls Order 1 Cor. V. should be re-admitted by his Indulgence 1 Cor. VII De Pudicitiâ cap. XIII XIV XV. because hee saw this was a peremptory exception against Montanus that a crime equal to Adultery should by S. Paul be admitted to Penance How easie a thing it had been for him to say that there is nothing of Penance nothing of Excommunication which Penance presupposes and therefore inferres in delivering to Satan the incestuous person in commanding them not so much as to eat with those that are called brethren that is Christians but are indeed such as the incestuous But hee being some fourteen hundred years nearer the beginning of Christianity than wee and being satisfied by his five senses of those things which new Heresies and Schismes oblige us to argue by consequences found that his Patriarch Montanus could not answer so And therefore thinking that the Church could not answer their arguments forces an answer to this by saying it was not the same man that is excommunicated by the Apostles Order 1 Cor. V. and restored by his Indulgence 2 Cor. VII Because hee saw the reconciling of a sinner to the Church by Penance as lively described and signified by S. Pauls Indulgence there as by any record of the Church at such time as it was most in use And can there remain any doubt of this Excommunication because the Church cannot now deliver to Satan for destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Surely all the writings of the Apostles do bear witnesse that the miraculous graces of the Holy Ghost which they had then but all Christians see the Church hath not now served not onely to witnesse the truth of Christianity but the authority of the Apostles in behalf of it This authority having taken effect by those Ordinances which the Church hath received at their hands It is no longer requisite that God should bear witnesse to his own Ordinances by such miraculous effects seeing hee doth no longer bear witnesse to the truth of Christianity by the like Hee that believes that whosoever is not in the Church is in the power of Satan needs no reason why hee is delivered to Satan that is put out of the Church Hee that believes it not is not to be perswaded that there is a power of Excommunication granted the Church But that the Christian saith which the Church preacheth is true for that without peradventure preached the Church At least till some body show us that this reason is insufficient hee must not demand that wee give an Article of our Creed and all the help to salvation which the communion of the Catholick Church pretendeth for such an objection as this Chuse now whether you will say as I say That under the Apostles difficulty was made of re-admitting some sorts of sins but never any peremptory order against it and so that Montanus and Novatianus were Schismaticks for seperating from the Church when the whole Church was agreed that there was a necessity of it or look about for a more reasonable sense to assoile the great difficulties of these passages Provided that you offer not violence to common sense and historical truth by imagining that so near the Apostles time there could be so much question about Penance they having neither meant nor ordained any thing about it To this argument all the most ancient records of the Church wheresoever mention is made of reconciling by Penance all the Penitential Canons of later ages will bear witnesse For who can undertake to answer or rather to obscure the evidence made in the place aforenamed that some sins were refused Penance and reconcilement in the first ages of the Church When wee have a whole book of Tertullian contending with Montannus to impose a Law upon it of re-admitting no Adulterers When wee know a whole sect of Novatians that left the Church that they might re-admit no Apostates As for the Penitential Canons of later ages it is manifest to any man that shall peruse and compare them with that which hath been said of the primitive times that they are nothing else but the abatement of that rigor of Discipline which during the primitive heat and zele of
unity of the Church which professed it Thus then writeth Irenaeus This preaching and this faith the Church having received as I said afore though dispersed all over the world carefully keepeth as if it inhabited one house And believeth these things alike as if it had one soule and one heart And harmoniously preacheth and teacheth and delivereth them as if it had but one mouth For there be divers languages in the world but the Tradition signifies the same Nor do the Churches seated in the Germanies believe or deliver otherwise nor those in the Spaines nor among the Gaules nor in the East nor in Aegypt nor in Africk nor those that are seated in the middle parts of the world But as the Creature of God the Sun is one and the same in all the world so shineth the preaching of the truth every where inlightning all men that will come to the knowledge of the truth And neither will any of those that Rule in the Churches though powerfull in speaking say things diverse from these for the Disciple is not above his Master nor hee that is weak in speech abate of that which is delivered For to the same Faith neither hee that is able to say much of it addeth nor hee that is able to say little abateth of it Hee that acknowledges this to be Gods doing must of necessity acknowledge the means of it the concurrence of all Churches to the maintainance of unity in the same Faith by disowning those that pretended to break it not left to mans will but injoyned by Gods And Irenaeus his instance in the Church of Rome serves to good purpose to make out this evidence For all Churches that is as Irenaeus sayes Christians of all Churches having necessarily recourse to Rome for all occasions because it was the seat of the Empire might there inform themselves and their Churches of the perverse doctrines that might be on foot and of the consent of the Churches in refusing the same In the next place I will not forget the relation of Epiphanius concerning Marcion in the beginning of his Heresie because it is next in time and of great consequence Hee being put out of the Church by his Father Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and making sure to be admitted by the Church of Rome received this answer That they could not do it without his Fathers consent because the Faith is one and the Unity the same Compare herewith the proceeding of Synesius against Andronicus Ep. LVIII LXXIX though so much distant in time which in the first book de Synedriis Judaeorum pag. 304. is said to be of a high strain Hee saith that if any Church neglecting his Church of Ptolomais as a poor Church being the Church of a small City shall receive to communion those whom it had excommunicated hee shall be thereby guilty of dividing the Church which Christ will have to be one And tell mee how this proceeding differs from that which in Marcions case Epiphanius sayes was done at Rome so near the Apostles Certainly if one Church should receive into communion those whom another Church excommunicates there could remaine no unity in the whole Church because no distinction from those that are not of the Church When therefore it appears that the Church held it for a Rule from the beginning not to do so shall not this be evidence that the reason is that which was alleged to Marcion at Rome which Synesius alleges To wit the Unity of the Church For the same reason Montanus having as it seems by pretended revelations and inspirations such as at that time there can be no question but the Church was graced with brought the Churches of Phrygia to his intent but being rejected by the Churches of Asia went or sent to Rome to induce that Church to undertake and prescribe the same Rules to all that adheered unto it For why otherwise should hee labor for the consent of that Church before others but in hope that having induced it to receive his Rules the authority thereof might induce other Churches to do the like because they found it necessary for them to hold correspondence with the Church of Rome Now I beseech you were all Christians utterly out of their five senses to contend about the communion of the Church if there were no such thing in point of fact Were they all from the beginning possest with a frenzy that they were bound to maintain it by voiding all questions that might impeach it if there were no such obligation in point of right Is it not plain that the issue of such questions was this whether the Unity of the Church or the advantage of such Rules to the common cause of Christianity wayed most How is Tertullian otherwise counted a Montanist that is as I suppose a Schismatick Wee may believe Tertullian in a mater which all Christians at Rome then might know when hee tells us that Zephyrinus then Bishop of Rome was about to admit unto his communion the Churches of Asia and Phrygia that had acknowledged Montarus and his Prophets and Prophesies Contr. Prax. cap. I. Though Pope Soter afore Zephyrinus had writ against Montanus as well as Apollonius Bishop of Ephesus if wee believe Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XXVI When hee sayes that afterwards the contrary was resolved upon informations brought from Asia by Praxeas an Heretick That which appears that the Montanists were disclaimed wee must admit That which appears not upon what information it was done wee need not dispute Tertullian hereupon drawes after him a company which called themselves a Church at Carthage and subsisted there after Tertullian till they were reduced by S. Augustine as wee learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XCVII and S. Augustine de Haeresibus This makes Tertullian a Schismatick That rather than rest content with those Rules which the rest of the Church satisfied themselves with hee departed from the Unity of it Otherwise those blasphemies for which the followers of Montanus are counted Hereticks preferring their own revelations above and against those of the Apostles hee is not chargable with Proceed wee now to the businesse of keeping Easter and the debate about it between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia These resolutely adheering to the custome which in all appearance they had received from their founder S. John to keep the Passion when the Jewes kept it that is upon the fifteenth day of the Moon that was the next equinoctial and the Resurrection the third after that The Church of Rome and almost all Churches beside keeping thc Passion on the Friday the Resurrection on the Ladies day following The one aiming at winning the Jewes when it was first set on foot the other to protest against them as incorrigible It is well enough known how Victor intending to withdraw his Communion from the Churches of Asia was reduced to tolerate them by the perswasions of Irenaeus then Bishop of Lions Certainly had not the Communion of the
the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod to the rest of the Churches in Christendome signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced against Samosatenus and requiring them to joyn with it If it be madnesse to think them so mad as to summon the rest of the Churches upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge what shall it be to think that this obligation was but imaginary or at least voluntarily contracted not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force who maintained himself in it by force against the sentence of the Synod decreed that possession should be given to him whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop by writing to him under that title Certainly this Heathen Emperor in referring the execution of the Synods decree to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church whereupon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed understood the constitution of the Church by his five senses better than those learned Christians of our time who argue seriously that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excommunicated by the Synod of Antiochia but by the Emperor Aurelian For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force those parts of the Church which were not present at the doing of them concurring ex postfacto to inact them and the civil power to grant the execution of them by secular power Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini That this Dionysius writing against Sabellius gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis who resorted to the Church of Alexandria as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius And that Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church this Dionysius writ him an Apology on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph that the Heresie of Arius which arose afterwards is no lesse condemned than that of Sabellius presently on foot Grant wee that it was an office of Christian charity to tender this satisfaction where it was become so requisite The example of Samosatenus shows that their addresse tended to question if not to displace their Bishop by the authority of the rest of the Church ingaging the consent of his own had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius that succeeded in the Church after the Council of Nicaea but this question whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria or remaine excommunicate And those truly that do not believe there is any Church but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together as they labored by so many Synods to attain an agreement through the Church in this and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it But those who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State when it declares it selfe Christian must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad when they put themselves to that trouble and charâ—e of so many Synods to obtain that consent of the Church which in point of right their own power might have commanded without all that ado In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse you shall finde that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged not to write to the Bishops whom they depoâ—e That is to say Not to give them the stile of Bishops not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church but to hold them as cut off from the Church Just as the Emperor Aurelian afore commanded possession to be delivered to him whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained To wit by continual intercourse of leters and messengers from Churches to Churches whereby the one understood the proceedings of the other and being satisfied of the reason of them gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies And this course being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles sufficeth to evidence the Unity of the Church established by the exercise of that communication which maintained it When wee see the Apostles from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident dare Leters to other Churches signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another by the communion of all with the Apostles who taught and brought into force the termes and conditions upon which they were to communicate one with another have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches by which common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church that the Unity and Communion of the whole was continued to after ages The words of Tertullian de praescript haeret cap. XX. must not be omitted here Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Sic omnes prima Apostolicae duâ— unà omnes probant veritatem Dum est illis communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis Quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles out of which all come So all are the primitive and Apostolical while all agree in proving the truth While they have the communication of peace the title of brotherhood the common mark of hospitality Which rights nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth It is to be known that among the Greeks and Romans if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City the fashion was to leave a mark for a pledge of it with one another which was called tessexa upon recognisance whereof hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt was not onely to be intertained by him whereupon these friends are called hospites signifying both hosts and guests but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians between Churches and Churches Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came found not onely accesse to the communion of the Church to which hee came but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian
show were it worth the while as also from whence they took their rise to do it And if he please to step over the water again into France I can show him a more lively picture of an Empire erected within an Empire when the Reformed Churches their had there Civil Assemblies to order the businesse which should arise upon the privileges which they had purchased by their arms for the maintaining of their Religion by force Whether by right or by wrong I say not here But this is the thing which hee calleth Imperium in Imperio the Popes temporal Power making him rather Soveraign above than within other Soveraignties But I have showed you already that this opinion never was the Faith of the Catholick Church but the position of the Papal Faction disclaimed at this day by the farre greater part of that communion though the contrary being countenanced the more make the greater appearance For my own opinion I have delivered it so clear in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State that these Authors might if they pleased to oversee all other Divines that deliver the same by that alone have seen what they had to refute And truly I do not believe that any of them can allege a more convicting reason against those that build a Soveraignty within a Soveraignty upon the Title of the Church than that which there is alleged from the Unity of the Church prophesied of in all the promises of the calling of the Gentiles which the constitution of one visible Church of all Christians fulfilleth For if the Church of several Soveraignties is to be one and the same Body by communicating in the Service of God upon supposition of the same Faith then cannot the foundation of it create any title of temporal right to the prejudice and disturbance of those Soveraignties from whence all force within their respective territories is derived If it be said that the supposition is impossible to wit that the Church should have power to Ordain Excommunicate decree and yet be indowed with no force to constrain those that are obliged to stand to the acts thereof The reason now alleged to the contrary is evident For if the obligation of the inward man be of force to resolve a Christian to part with his life to maintain the profession of it If it be part of that obligation which Christianity createth to hold communion with Gods Church is not this obligation enough to inforce the acts of the Church and that excommunication which inforces the same And for experience from the effect it is but alleging the subsistence of the Church till the time that Gregory II and III Popes withdrew their obedience and the obedience of those parts of Italy that followed them from the Emperor Leo Isaunus upon pretense of his erring in the Faith in putting down Images For that is the first example which Christendom hath brought forth of temporal freedom from allegiance due to the Soveraigne founded upon the Title of Christianity If yet it be evident that this was the case in which I see there is some difficulty made But before this time it can neither be said that the Church was not the same after Constantine as before nor that the power of it ever produced any rebellion against the Soveraign upon this Title more than when the Martyrs suffered for their Christianity without defending themselves by force And therefore when this Doctor for the ground of his opinion as visible to his imagination as the common notions in Euclide alleges that all Power all Jurisdiction all Lawes all Punishment all Government all Appeales all Councils are derived first and do lastly resort to the Secular Power no lesse in Ecclesiastical than in Secular Causes and concerning Ecclesiastical as well as Secular Persons because all force which constrains obedience is vested in it his imagination is meerly imbroyled with equivocation of words For all Power is nothing else but a moral quality consisting in the right of obliging other mens wills those in respect of whom the Power holds by the act of his or their wills that have it And what shall hinder God to create such an obligation upon the consciences of Christians by virtue of their Christianity not allowing them any force to inact it but the denial of the communion of the Church Whether the Rules of the Church be called Laws or Canons hee that is tied to hold communion with the Church is tyed to observe those Rules by which it subsists and if hee do not deserves to be set aside rather than the Unity thereof perish Whether yee call them Magistrates or Elders that are appointed to govern the Church it maters not if by virtue of Gods Law the obligation of obeying them be evident in the Scriptures Whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not when a Christian is censured to be put out of the Church it shall have the same effect with that Jurisdiction whereby a malefactor is put out of the world according as the correspondence between the Church and the State will bear it How this may be counted punishment how not I will not say again having said it already In all causes and concerning all persons I acknowledge there lies an appeal to the Soveraign the Church having to do onely in Ecclesiastical causes concerning men as they are members of the Church and so accidentally when the Church is as large as the State all acknowledging the same Church the Jurisdiction thereof whether properly so called or not extending to as many as that of the State For the last appeal is one of those Jura Majestatis or Prerogatives wherein Soveraignty consisteth neither is it alienable though it is limitable by those termes which Christianity when it is acknowledged to come from God establisheth On the other side the Power of the Church though never so evidently settled by Christianity may be abused not only when it is extended to some temporal effect but also when it is extended beyond the ground and reason of that Christianity which it presupposeth Instances you have of both in the claimes of temporal Power and Infallibility in behalf of the Church And as there lies an appeal to a Heathen Soveraign professing not to persecute his Subjects for their Christianity but to protect them in it upon pretense that it is extended to a temporal effect so may there by an appeal to a Christian Soveraign upon pretense that it is extended beyond the bounds which Christianity alloweth So the Council of Aâ—tiochia appealed Aurelian because Paulus Samosatenus protected himself in his House belonging to the the Church by power derived from him But hee alloweth them that trial which Christianity settleth So Constantine received the appeal of the Donatists but referred the trial to the Church in a Council at Rome and again another at Arles representing all the West But of the bounds of Secular and Ecclesiastical power I must speak again That the
Ecclesiastical may be from God though limitable by the Secular hitherto this is evidence As for the holding of Councils I mervail to see this Doctor so securely to dream that the calling of them all belongs onely to the State and that it were an usurpation in the Church to hold any but by commission from it For hee is not ignorant how many Synods were held by the Church afore Constantine and that upon the same right as those meetings of the Apostles which I have showed had the power and force of General Councils without asking leave either of Jewes or Romanes Which is enough for the present purpose to infringe the argument made by this Doctor in the former part of his book Not that there is no Church but that there can be none where there is a State Wherein hee out-vieth the first book de Synedriis his Master who having granted that the Excommunications of Christians were taken up by the voluntary consent of Churches hath by consequenâ—e granted that the Church was a Church that is a Corporation before Constantine And therefore I referr the consideration of the time after Constantine till I speak of the bounds of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in Church maters Where it will as easily appear as it is easie to look into any record of the Church that the holding of Synods was a mater of course and Canon and custome allowed indeed by the Empire but constituted and limited by the Church Not because the State might not have forbid them Had they gone beyond the bounds of that right which the constitution of the Church establisheth justly unjustly if they had not So that the power of forbidding to be just the use of it unjust But that the Church was yet unacquainted with the motives of transgressing those bounds and so the State had no just cause to interpose Of General Councils I say not the same Not as if the Church afore Constantine had usurped a right not due had it assembled by representatives in a General Council But whether such assemblies were forborn as mater of more jealousie to the State than either ordinary meetings for the service of God or Synods Or of more charge to the Church It must be acknowledged that the first General Council of Nicaea could not have been assembled without the command as well as the charge of Constantine That other General Councils were never assembled without the concurrence of the chief Powers of Christendome That every Soveraign hath a Power to command the presence of every subject where and when hee shall please And that Constantius when hee constrained the Council of Ariminum to sit against their will to the prejudice of the respective Churches on purpose by this duresse and the opportunities of time to bring them to his will abused his Power indeed but usurped it not For if the constitution of the Church be no ground for any temporal Right then can no quality in the Church exempt any man from the service which as a member of the Common-wealth hee owes his Soveraign But whether they acted by commission from Constantius or by the quality they held in the Church the successe of his designe witnesseth For as I have showed you that without being assembled they had both right obliging them and means inabling them to maintaine the Faith by mutual intelligence and correspondence So being assembled alters nothing in the case saving the opportunity it giveth to imploy their right to that end which their quality pretendeth Their assembling upon his command signifying no trust which they undertook to him prejudicial to that which their quality in the Church importeth Having said this in general to that general Argnment upon which this Doctor pretends to build his opinion I am content to turn my Reader loose to him provided hee be content to consider also that which shall be found requisite to be said when I have done with his two predecessors CHAP. XII That the Law expersly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it requireth was grounded upon reason from the true God the Tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than the precepts of the Law the love of our Neighbor onely to Jewes Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law SO much difference as there is between these two or these three opinions and the reasons upon which they proceed it is manifest that the issue and pretense of all is the same That there is no such thing as a Church Understanding by that name a Visible Society or Corporation of all Christian people subsisting or that ought to subsist by a Charter from God one and the same from the first to the second coming of Christ Which therefore remaines distinct from all States and Soveraignties that professe Christianity by the Rights upon which it subsists though the persons of which both consist may be the same if it so fall out that Christianity be professed by all the Soveraign Powers under which there are Christians But that is the reason why I am forced to quote both Authors and Opinions by name which in other points I shall avoid Not onely because I would be as short in this abridgment as my designe will bear But because nothing seemes to mee more odious or further from the profession of a Christian than the affectation of contradicting the opinions of men in repute for Learning which therefore I would have avoided by silencing the names of these had I not found so much difference in the means from which they would inferre the same consequence And truly the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in making the question general that is general indeed and giving that resolution of all the branches of it without which whatsoever is said to some parts of it leaves the whole unresolved while any part so remaines Those that onely dispute the power of Excommunication are neverthelesse to give account what Right the Secular Power can have to appoint the Persons that shall either determine or execute maters of Religion to decide Controversies of Faith to minister the Sacraments which they may do themselves by much better Title than by their Deputies than if they resolved and maintained all this as expresly as the Leviathan hath done It may be indeed hee hath made his resolution more subject to be contradicted by so freely and generously declaring it But whosoever shall undertake the same pretense will stand no lesse obliged to God and to his Church to give account how every part of that Power which as well before as since Constantine hath been exercised by the Church should henceforth be exercised by Secular Powers without prejudice to Christianity before hee go about to void it Though hee give not the truth so much advantage against
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
Apostles are certainly their act the declaration of the Church proceeding no further than the means provided by God for that purpose will inable the Church to discerne that this doth appear will have the force of a Law to oblige all Christians not to violate the communion of Christians upon pretense that it doth not appear So the rcason of believing and the evidence thereof are both antecedent to the foundation of the Church But the declaration of the Church obliging those that are within it not to violate communion upon pretense of contrary evidence that is the effect of that right and power which God giveth his Church But there are other acts which the Church will be as often necessitated to do as it becomes questionable in the Church how any of those Offices which God is served with by Christians is to be performed What times at what places what persons are to assemble themselves for that service as of it self it is not determined so were it never so particularly determined by the writings of the Apostles yet so long as the world is changeable and the condition of the Church by that reason not to be limited in that service by the same Rule alwaies the Society of the Church could not subsist without a Power to determine it The persons especially that communicate with the Church if you will have the Church a Society must be indowed with several qualities some of them inabling to communicate passively that is to joyn in the Offices of Gods service For till our time I think it was never quessioned among Christians whether the same persons might minister and he ministred to in the Offices of Christianity Then if some persons be to be set apart for that purpose of necessity it may become questionable by what acts the fame is lawfully done according to the will of God declared by his Apostles Further when it is determined who when where are the Offices of Christianity and the Assemblies of the Church to be celebrated the least circumstance of matter and form of solemnity and ceremony though it make no difference of saith yet is able to create a cause of separation of communion that shall be just on the one side Is it any great Power that is demanded for the Church by the Original constitution thereof when it is demanded that the Church have Power to regulate it self in things of this consequence Let mee be bold to say there is never a Company in London so contemptible that can stand without having the like excepting the determination of maters of Faith And therefore it is a small thing to demand that the Apostles for their time should be able to do it by Power from God so as to be heard in Christs stead Those that received Power from them according to the measure of that Power which they received though they pretend not their acts to be our Lord Christs as the Apostles yet within the bounds of that Office to which they are ordained they have power from God determining their persons though not justifying their acts Suppose then that our Lord Christ assume a Ceremony in use in the Synagogue at such time as hee preached of baptizing those that imbraced Moses Law being born of other Nations to signifie and to solemnize the admission of them that undertake Christianity to the privileges of his New people I suppose it is the act of our Lord that makes this a Law to his Church though it was the Power which God had provided to govern his ancient people that made it a Law to the Synagogue It is no more doubted among men of Learning that our Lord Christ at his last Supper made use of Ceremonies practised among the Jewes at their Passeover in the celebration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist the outward act whereof hee appointed to consist in those Ceremonies whereas the inward intent thereof was not known afore For whatsoever they knew of Christ they could not thereby know that hee would institute the Sacrament of his Body and Bloud in those Elements In like maner it had been alwaies a custome of Superiors in the Synagogue according to that of the Apostle Ebr. VlI. 7. Without all contradiction the lesse is blessed by the greater to blesse and to pray for interiors with laying hands upon them or lifting up hands over them So did the Priests so did the Prophets so Isaac Gen. XXVII 4 7 12 19 21 22. Jacob Gen. XLVIII 9 14 17. Aaron Levit. lX. 22. because a man cannot lay hands upon an Assembly all at once The Priests blessing therefore is called among the Jewes listing up of hands and many scrupulous observations there are among them in doing it Num. VI. 23 24 25. So our Lord in doing cures as Naaman thought Elisha would have done 2 Kings V. II. in blessing his Disciples Lue. XXIV 50. and divers the like If then the Apostles of our Lord frequented the same Ceremony in solemnizing Ordination as praying for the grace of the Holy Ghost upon those that received it and in other acts of publick effect in the Church it cannot be conceived that any thing but their owne act brought it in force though the practice of Gods ancient people gave them a precedent for it but it must be conceived that this argues a Society of the Church where such Ceremonies are instituted to celebrate such acts with as were to provide for the maintenance of it Here I must not forget the Law of Tithes and the Title by which they are challenged to be due to the Church For having made that this proved the Church a Corporation by the power of making Lawes within themselves of creating Governors and of Excommunicating If it be demanded where is the common stock and revenue of it seeing no Corporation can subsist without means to maintaine the attendance requisite to those things wherein it is to communicate it will be necessary to show that those who founded the Church have provided for this Tithes are commonly claimed by the Levitical Law And it is not easie to give a reason why other Lawes of the Church should not come in force or stand in force by the Law of Moses if it be once said that Tithes are due to the Church under the Gospel because they were as signed the Levitical Priesthood by the Law Truly it deserves consideration whether they that insist upon the Levitical Law in the claime of Tithes to the Church do not prejudice the cause which they pretend to maintaine For if they look into the tenor of the Law it will easily appear that Tithes of fruits of the earth are assigned the Priesthood by God in consideration of the Land of Promise which hee gave them And that therefore the practice of the Jewes at this very day is due and legal who pay no Tithes of those fruits because the service for which they are due is by the Law prohibited out of the Land of Promise Besides it is
should follow that under the Gospel there should be no such Power in the Church For had it been never so clear never â—o much granted that such a Power was in force under the Law yet could it not be derived upon the Church mediately or immediately from some act of our Lord Christ founding his Church it would not have served the turne The Law of Moses continuing Scripture to the worlds end but Law to none but to those whom it was given to oblige That is the people that subsisted by receiving it and that for that time when it was intended to be in force But if it may appear that the Church is made one Society and Communion by the act of them that founded it and that such it cannot be without a Profession limiting or uniting the right of that Communion to him that makes it nor stand such without power of denying the same to him that visibly makes that Profession and visibly failes of it Whether any such thing were in force under the Law or not under the Gospel it shall not therefore fail to be in force True it is that this cannot be true unlesse a competent reason may be made to appear of something answerable to it under the Law in the same proportion as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church holds But such a one will not be wanting in this case They that argue from the excluding of Adam out of Paradise to the putting of sinners out of the Church if they argue no more than a figure discernâ—ble by the truth when competent evidence of that truth is made conclude not amisse For though this be before the Law yet not before the purpose of God in figuring Chriâ—â—ianity was set on foot And that Paradise as it is a figure of heaven and the joyes thereof so likewise is a figure of the Church upon earth is necessarily conâ—equent to the reason upon which the mystical sense of the Old Testament is grounded So likewise under the Law the shutting of Lepers out of the camp of Israel answerable in the Jewes Law to the City of Jerusalem and supposing the truth of the Gosâ—el a figure of the visible Church neither signified any cause nor produced any effect but of a legal incapacity of conversing with Gods people But supposing a spiritual people of God intitled by their profession to remission of sins and life everlasting a visible failleure of this profession is the cause which producing inviâ—ble separation from God is competent to produce a visible separation from the Church which is visibly that people The penalty allotted to the neglect of circumcision is The childe to be cut off from his people Which penalty beginning there is afterward much frequented by the Law in many cases the penalty whereof is to be cut off from Gods people Signifying as hee hath learnedly showed and saved mee the pains of doing it again that such a forfeiture should make him that incurred it lyable to be suddenly out off by Gods hand from the land of his people And because it was an evident inconvenience that a civil Law should leaye such faults to Gods punishment who never tied himself to execute the punishment though hee made the transgressor lyable to it therefore the Antiens of Gods people according to Gods Law have allotted to such faults the punishment of scourging as next in degree to capital for grievous But there are several other crimes mentioned in the Law which who incurres is by the same Law cut off from Gods people by being put to death I demand now what correspondence can be more exact supposing the Law that tenders the happinesse of this life in the Land of Promise to them that undertake and observe it to be the fore-runner of the New Covenant that tenders remission of sins and life everlasting upon the same terms than is seen betwixt the invisible and visible forfeiture of the privileges of Gods people in the Land of Promise and the invisible and visible forfeiture of the Communion of Gods people as the sin is notorious or not Nor will it serve his turn to scorn S. Cyprian urging as you may see by my book of the Right of the Church that Origen and S. Austin do pag. 27. that Excommunication in the Church is the same as putting to death under the Law As proving that by a meer allusion which if it have not other grounds is not like to be received For S. Paul saith well that the Scriptures are able to make a man wise unto salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus 2 Tim. III. 15. speaking of the Scriptures of the Old Testament Because without faith in Christ upon the motives which his coming hath brought forth to the world they are not able to do it but supposing those motives received do inable a Christian to give a reason of that different dispensation whereby it pleased God to govern things under the Law and so not onely to attain salvation but with wisedom to direct others in it and take away stumbling blocks oâ—t of their way to it And in this case should a man go about to perswade Christians to admit such a Power over them by no other argument than this well might the motion be scorned by them to whom it were tendred But there being no pretense in this allegation but of rendring a reason for a Power of the Church from that of the Synagogue and the Fathers so well stated in the difference between the Law and the Gospel as not easily chargeable of the indiscretion to use ridiculous arguments it is to be maintained that they have given such a reason from the Old Testament as is to be required by such as would be wise to salvation by it Indeed I could not but observe in the late History of Henry the Eight p. 157. where the Writer imagines what reasons Cardinal Woolsey gave the Pope for his consent to the dissolving of some little Monasteries for the erection of his Colleges at Oxford and Ipswich that hee alleges among others That the Clergy should rather fly to Tropes and Allegories if not to Cabbala it self than permit that all the parts of Religious worship though so obvious as to fall easily within common understandings should be without their explication The intent whereof may justly seem to charge the Clergy to have advanced the mystical sense of the Scripture as a means to make the Religion they maintaine more considerable for the difficulty of it But I would there were not too much cause to suspect from other writings of the same Author a compliance with Porphyry Celsus Julian and other enemies of Christianity that have not spared to charge our Lord Christ and his Apostles with abuse and imposture in alleging the Scriptures of the Old Testament impertinently to their purpose though here hee charge onely the Clergy for that wherein they follow his and their steps To mee I confesse
Corporation of the Church by divine right it is sufficient in this place onely to show that there is a right in the Body of the Church by Gods appointment to do such things as the Nature of a Society founded upon a Charter of Gods inferreth For whatsoever persons shall be by the same appointment inabled to act for the Church and to conclude it as in no form of Government the whole is able to act by it self whatsoever is done by those persons is reasonably and legally said to be done by the Church though I referr it to another dispute to determine what persons they are and in what cases These reasons therefore do satisfie mee that the delivering to Satan which S. Paul condemns the incestuous person to implies indeed something extraordinary which the sentence of Excommunication in these dayes produceth not And it is this That during the time of the Apostles to manifest the presence of God in his Church those that were shut out of it became subject to the visible incursion of evil spirits plaguing them with bodily diseases Which S. Paul calleth the destruction of the flesh Intimating that Gods end in them was to reduce him to the sense of that Christianity which hee had professed that by inwardly returning to it the spirit might be saved in the day of Christ whether or no by outwardly professing it hee might be reconciled to the Church for salvation by the means of it As for the words of our Lord Dic Ecclesiae I will not insist upon the improbabilities of Erastus his interpretation that Let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane is no more but this Be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Romanes Court. For this I say It is plain by S. Paul 1 Cor. VI. 1. that our Lords Disciples that is Christians might in no case implead one another before the Gentiles whatsoever Erastus imagine Which it is plain the Jewes also did their utmost to avoid Nor is the other more probable that makes it no more than that upon his neglect of the Synagogue hee was free to return scorn and to avoid him who had scorned the Synagogue For would our Lord binde his Disciples to resort to the Synagogue and yet obtain nothing but leave to scorn him that scorned them first and afterwards the Synagogue Besides the inconvenience common to both these interptetations that such a precept to his Disciples that is to all Christians should concern them no longer nor in any other consideration than that for which at the first Christians were bound to comply with the Synagogue which compliance not onely what it was but even what it signified they then understood no more than hee that understands nothing But I leave all other advantage to prosecute the principle premised That the Disciples of our Lord acknowledged a new King of Israel which the title of Gods anointed the Messias signified a new Covenant by which hee was their King a new Israel according to the Spirit not according to the flesh and by consequence new Laws which a New Common-wealth must needs inferr And therefore call it what you will Synagogue which as yet they understood not to be void or Church which they understood must be but that it should be distinct from the Synagogue understood not being commanded to tell the Assembly they must understand it to be an Assembly of themselves Christs Disciples which all Jews might be for any thing they yet understood And when our Lord saith Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man or as a Publicane though they understood that Heathen men and Publicanes resorted to the Temple as also those that were Excommunicate by the Synagogue did because the Law stood not upon any promise of the world to come but upon the privilege and sitl of a Jew to all rights that Jewes were indowed with yet they underflood also that our Lord spoke in Parables containing sharp speeches figures and riddles When hee faith Hee that smiteth thee on the right cheek turn him the left they underflood that himself no way balked his own command when being smitten by the Jews Ministers hee an-swered not by turning the other cheek But that his meaning was to have his Disciples as ready to do them good that so should assront them as if they should pleasure his anger by turning him another cheek to strike And when hee faith Hee that constraineth thee to go a mile with him go thou twain His meaning is not that they should leave their businesse to be counted fools for it But to be ready to do him as great a pleasure So hee that fees the Jews so to avoid the society of the Gentiles and by consequence of publiâ—anes who has necessary and continual frequentation with Gentiles that when they came from the Piazza they washed their hands before they went to meat as polluted by coming near them hee that fees S. Peter obliged to give account to his brethren the Jewish Christians why hee did eat with Cornelius and his Company though worthippers of the true God and such as had imbraced the Faith that fees God instruct him so to do by the vision of earing unclean beasts as if hee could no more do the one than the other by the Law Hee I fay that considers these things will say that our Lord when hee sayes Let him be to thee as an Heathen man or a Publicane hath very sharply expressed the fame that S. Paul means when hee sayes with such a one no not to eat And therefore I conclude his meaning to be that which I have concluded heretofore that his Disciples should carry none of their suits though concerning mater of Interest out of the Church but stand to what it shall determine For how should S. Paul demand Dare any of you having a cause with another go to suit before the unrighteous and not before the Saints I Cor. VI. I. If it had not been a Law known to Christians that their suits were to be determined within themselves Referring my self for further evidence that this was then in force to what hath been showed in another place and having not been contradicted must needs be in force And if any man shall object that this would be the ruine of all States so soon as they prosesse Christianity if the Jurisdiction of them should be swallowed up in the Jurisdiction of the Church all causes being in that case causes of Christians For an answer referring him not onely to that which I have said already there but to that which I purpose to say further before I have done with this point And upon these terms I grant Erastus that when out Lord sayes Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and a Publicane Hee sayes in effect be it lawfull for thee to sue him in the Court of the Gentiles Not as if our Lord did allow that which S. Paul forbids That a Christian should sue a Christian before Gentiles But
de Virginibus velandis Wherein hee disputes whether they were priviledged against S. Pauls order I Cor. XI 5-15 of vailing their faces in the Church of the rank of Marryrs and Consessors that is those who had abondones themselves to whatsoever the prosession of Chrissianity should inferre howsoever they escaped I need say nothing The esteem of them being known to have been such that it is no mervail if their desire or their sentence were counted a Prejudice or Prerogative to the Church As thus At the elections of the Romane Magistrates the Century of the Tribe that voted first was counted to have a Prerogative the Vore thereof being a kinde of Prejudice to them that followed to vote the same So that it was found that whose carried this Prerogative commonly carried the whole Vote Such was the effect of that absolution which Consessors in their durance did sometimes grant Penitents in the Primitive Church To wit a confidence grounded upon the esteem of their merit towards Christianity that their act would not be made void by the Body of the Church Whereupon S. Cypr. Epist XII Qui libellos à Martyribus acceperunt eorum Praerogativâ apud Deum adjuvari possunt Those who have received billets from the Martyrs and may finde help before God by their Prerogative The Monks Excommunication proceeded upon the same ground That is to say upon a confidence that whom hee by that sentence declared to have forfeited the Communion of the Church in his judgment those who had his Holinesse in esteem would not communicate with The Emperors proceeding shows it was not for nothing Who being absolved by the Ordinary rested not content till hee had satisfied the Monk The reason because even then it might be evident that the preservation of Unity in the Church obliged to grant the Communion thereof to such as there was no reasonable assurance that Gods pardon did go before it which otherwise the restoring of that Communion ought to suppose Which might move a tender conscience to do more than the Church injoyned him to do But I intend not hereby to justifie maters of fact in the Primitive Church It shall serve my turn to argue that the reason inferred appears not by this practice because another reason doth appear Onely I say further that nothing of primitive institution can be argued from a custome which they that relate it Tertullian and S. Cyprian do mark for an abuse tending either to abate the severity of discipline or to dissolve the unity of the Church And therefore hee that observes all this must not forget to observe the reasons whereby S. Cyprian protests that the courses whereby those of his time went about to force the consent of the Church by the credit of the Martyrs were seditious Ep. IX XXII And also the course that hee takes to referr the mater to the debate and common sentence of other Churches equally concerned in the cause Ep. XVII For to have recourse to the Unity of the Church to cure the distemper of a particular Church had been against common sense for him that had not known that those whom hee had to do with acknowledged the same And that being acknowledged it will be more against common sense to imagine that Martyrs or Confessors of one Church could give Law to the whole as they must do if wee suppose that absolution granted by them in the Church of Carthage was of it self of force and valid which by the same right and title must extend to all that were in the same case But there remains a second reason or plea how a Communion of the Church might be and so a Power to Excommunicate and by consequence other Rights in which it hath been showed that the Society of the Church subsisted before Constantine without any title of divine Right which Princes and States professing Christianity are bound to maintain For it is alleged that Excommunication and Penance which is the abatement of it was in force in the Primitive Church by virtue of the voluntary consent of Christians consederating themselves upon such terms as wee finde to have been in use into a discipline taken up of their own free resolution Which by consequence must be said of the rest of those rights wherein the Communion of the Church and the Unity thereof did consist at that time To which I must except generally in the first place That this plea whether true or false for the present is not receivable so much as into consideration untill it be qualified and limited so that it may be consistent with the former now refuted For no man can pretend to advance such a plea for his cause as consists of two parts whereof the first destroyes the second Now it was pretended afore that there was no Excommunication in use under the Apostles but that which was in force in the Synagogue by virtue of Moses Law and the Power erected by it of introducing such Penalties as the maintenance thereof should require And here it is pretended That Excommunication and other effects of Ecclesiastical Power came in force upon the voluntary agreement of Christians Therefore the whole plea if you will have it hang together must be this That the whole Body of Christians did voluntarily agree among themselvs to receive that Excommunication which was in force by virtue of the Law and by consequence such other Rights already in force by virtue of the Law as they agreed to be no lesse usefull for maintaining the Communion of the Church than they found Excommunication to be And on these termes I admit the two parts of this plea not to be inconsistent For the effect of the whole will be this That there was indeed a Society and Corporation of one visible Church from the beginning of Christianity to Constantine such as I now challenge that there ought to be But not by any order of the Apostles or title of divine right but by the free consent of all Christians which being the consent of subjects and subsisting by sufferance of the Soveraign resolves into his will when hee pleases to seize it into his hands But then I will appeal to the common reason of all men whether it be consistent therewith in two regards The first shall be that which I alleged before out of Irenaeus whether it be consistent with common sense to imagine that neither the Churches planted in the Germane Provinces or Spanish or Ganlish of the Romane Empire nor those in the East nor in Aegypt or Africk nor those that were planted in the middle parts of the world should practice or observe otherwise than the Communion which de facto I have already showed to have been maintained among them did require and all this have no other beginning than their own free and voluntary consent prevented by no obligation at all but the dictate of common reason pronouncing what would be best for the maintenance of that common Christianity to which wee suppose
them obliged If there were no more in question but the uniting of seven persons into one of our Independent Congregations or as many more as may all hear any man preach at once I should grant that such Bodies might subsist for such a time as the cōmon batred of the Church restrains the peevishnesse of particular persons from breaking that Communion which no tye of conscience obliges them to maintain But if the experience of divers years hath not brought forth any union betwixt any two such Congregations in England so farr as I can learn what was it that united all Christians from East to West into that one Communion visibly distinguished from all Heresies and Schisms which till about the Council of Chalcedon remained inviolable supposing no obligation of our common Christianity delivered by the Apostles to maintain it Is it possible for any man to imagine that with one consent they would have cast themselves into such a form of observation and practice as all to acknowledge the direction of the same persons in several parts to acknowledge those Rules which Generally were the same though in maters of lesse moment differing in several parts to intertain or refuse communion with them that were intertained or refused by the Church where they dwelt for a common cause had there been nothing but their own fansy to tell them not onely what was requisite to intertain such communion but whether it were requisite to intertain such communion or not If such a thing should be said the processe of my discourse were never a whit the more satisfied unlesse some body could show mee how the truth of Christianity can be well grounded upon those motives the evidence whereof resolves into the consent of all Christians And yet that which all Christians have visibly made a Law to their conversation from the beginning to wit the communion of one Catholick Church not belong at all to the mater of our common Christianity And therefore this plea is no lesse ruinous to our common Christianity the ground whereof it undermineth than to common sense For that in such difference of judgments as mankinde is liable to the whole Church should be swayed to unanimity herein by the Prerogative as it were of the Synagogue uniting themselves by imbracing the Ordinances thereof the evident state of the times whereof wee speak will not admit to any pretense of probability The division between Jews and Christians being then advanced to such a hatred on the Jews part that it would have been a very implausible cause to say that Christians ought to follow the Jewes whose curses they heard every day whose persecutions they felt in the tortures which at their instance were inflicted by the Gentiles A thing so evident both by the Writings of the Apostles and the ancientest records of the Church that I will not wrong the Readers patience to prove it True it is that at times and in places great compliance was used by Christians to gain them who elsewhere were so ready to persecute their fellow Christians As at Jerusalem under and after S. James at Ephesus and in Asia under S. John there is great appearance to believe In the mean time hee that can make a question whether the separation between Jewes and Christians and the hatred ensuing upon it were formed under the Apostles must make a question of the truth of S. Pauls Epistles to the Galatians to the Colossians to the Philippians to Titus and especially that to the Hebrews Besides that during the time whereof Irenaeus speaks Christianity was extended so farr beyond Judaisme that a great part of the Church could not be acquainted with the conversation of the Jewes much lesse learn and imbrace their orders And therefore as I do admit and imbrace the diligence of those learned men who bestow their paines to show how the Rules and Customes of the Church are derived from those of the Synagogue So I prescribe one general prejudice concerning all orders that may appear to be so derived that they are all to the Church Traditions of the Apostles and by their act came in force in it And that upon the premises that neither they had any force from the Law of Moses not could be admitted by common consent of Christians after the separation was formed that is after the Apostles time And therefore by their authority were introduced into the Church Having excepted thus much it will notwithstanding be time to distinguish that the orders and customes and observations of the Church may be said to be voluntary as nothing is more voluntary than Christianity it self though there be nothing to which a man is so much obliged For though the will of God and our salvation and whatsoever God hath done to show that salvation depends upon Christianity oblige us to it yet they oblige us also to imbrace it voluntarily so that whatsoever should be done in respect of it without an inward inward inclination of the will would be abominable In which regard whatsoever our Christianity obliges us to is no lesse voluntary than it is And in this sense I grant that the confederation of common Discipline which prevailed in the primitive Church was by the free and voluntary consent of Christians who be freely and voluntary consenting to the profession of Christianity consented freely to maintain the Communion of the Church which they knew to belong to that profession as a part of it But then this consent which is voluntary in regard that the choice of Christianity is free becomes necessary upon the obligation of making good the Christianity which once wee have professed the Communion of the Church professed by all obliging every one for his part to maintain it So when Pliny reports to Trajan of the Christians Ep. X. Solitos Sacramento se obstringere ne Furta ne Latrocinia ne Adulteria committerent nè fidem fallerent ne depositum negarent That they were wont to tye themselves by a Sacrament to commit no Thefts Robberies or Adulteries not to fail of their faith or deny that which was deposited in their trust being demanded It is manifest that all this is the profession of all Christians and that the Sacrament of Baptisme is properly the Vow of observing it And though I dispute not here that the Eucharist is called a Sacrament and Sacramentum in Latine signifies an Oath yet in as much as it is the meaning of the Sacrament of Baptisme I conceive I understood not Pliny amisse when I conceived that hee speaks in this place of the Eucharist when hee reports that they were wont before day to sing Psalms in praise of Christ as God and to tye themselves to the particulars hee names by a Sacrament And the same Tertullian understood by Pliny when hee saith hee reports to Trajan Apolog. II. Praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de Sacramentis as Heraldus truly reads it eorum comperisse quà m coetus antelucanos ad canendum
that wee are at a distance from the Church of Rome and all who communicate with it upon a just cause of refusing the Reformation as all that professe the Reformation suppose And therefore that there remains no visible presumption what is true the ground of visibility being destroyed by the division of the Church I shall be far enough from extenuating the force of this objection or the effect of this division acknowledging that according to my opinion holding both the Reformation and the Catholick Church the Church should be visible but is indeed invisible Not absolutely but as that which is hardly visible may truly be called invisible because every one whom it concerns cannot attain to discern it upon clear grounds For my intent is to aggravate the mischiefs of division to the highest which they who believe not the Catholick Church do not take for any inconvenience And therefore I grant all and do acknowledge that division in the Church necessarily destroyeth that provision which God hath made for the unlearned as well as the learned equally concerned in the common Salvation of Christians to discern by their common sense where to resort for that which is necessary to the Salvation of all and how to improve and husband the same as their proficience in Christianity calls for more at their hands then the Salvation of all requires Whereby it comes to pass that they are put to make their choice in maters whereof it is not possible for ordinary capacities to comprehend the grounds And so must chuse out of fansy education prejudice faction or which is the vilest of all interest of this world which is in one word profit But this being a choice that must be made and though difficult yet possible to be well made hee that without supposing Infallibility on the one side or Reformation on the other side would discern between true and false supposing the Original unity of the Catholick Church must be a madman if hee advise not with the Records of the Catholick Church though out of date as to force of Law on both sides to tell him wherein Reformation infallibly consisteth For by that means though hee shall not be able to restore that unity which is once violated the duty of all but obliging to an effect that cannot take place without the consent of parties yet hee shall be able so to behave himself and that Church which goes by this Rule be it greater or be it lesse shall be so constituted as not to make but to suffer the division which it is charged with But hee who preaches original liberty to all Christians to cast themselves into Presbyteries or into Congregations at their choice bids them sail the main Sea without Ballast and besides departing from the Unity of the Church by becoming Members of arbitrary Societies not parts of the whole by the visible act of visible power in it expose themselves to the shelves and quick sands of positions destructive to the Faith of the Church And I am to demand of this Doctor if the Presbyteries be Churches by association of Congregations and the Congregations Churches without it and those which are neither Presbyteries nor Congregations that is in effect all the Parish Churches of the land be Churches no lesse than either of both because they have one whom the Triers call a godly man sent them to preach whatsoever he can make of the Bible I say I must demand of him what it is that qualifies a man a Member of a Church or a Church a Church and how a man by being such a one becomes a Member of the whole Church which hitherto hath been thought necessary to the Salvation of every Christian For who knoweth not the dispute that remains between the Reformation and the Church of Rome which shall be the true Church Which if every man be at liberty to become a Member of a Congregation with any six more that hee likes who by that means shall be a Church is plainly about nothing And therefore wee are plainly invited to a new Christianity part whereof hath hitherto been to think our selves Members of the Catholick Church by being Members of some particular Church part of the Catholick So certain it is that had not the Creed been first banished out of mens hearts it had not been banished out of the Church But when this Doctor maintaineth further that all men having power in chief to chuse for themselves in mater of Religion the Soveraign hath Power not onely to chuse for it self but to impose penalties upon those which owe no man any account of their choice if they chuse not that which the Soveraign chuseth I confesse I find this toucheth mee and the remnant of the Church of England to the quick edifying the Soveraign to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who find themselves bound never to communicate in the change that is made and in making in Religion amongst us But I find withal so much inconsequence and contradiction to his own sense and the sense of all Christians in it that I hope no Secular Power will be so prodigal of a good conscience as to make it self the executioner of a doctrine tending to so unchristian injustice For if as hee saith no man is answerable for the Religion hee chuseth to any but God how shall hee be liable to be punished by man for that wherein hee offendeth him not Or how can any man offend him to whom hee is not countable Nor will it serve the turn to say That by denying protection in the exercise of Religion the Secular Power punisheth no man for the judgement of his conscience For all Christians of what profession soever do generally believe that they are bound to exercise the Religion which they are bound to professe That Baptisme wherein by the positive will of God under the Gospel the profession of Christianity consisteth truly obliging true Christians to assemble themselves for the service of God with his Church according to the Rules of it It cannot therefore be said that it is no penalty no persecution for Religion to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who are not punished for the judgment of their conscience For whosoever can be supposed to be a good Christian not onely had rather but surely had better lose his life much more any comfort of it than lose the exercise of his Christianity in the service of God whereupon his Salvation so neerly dependeth Nor will it serve the turn to say as this Doctor saith that in persecuting the Christian Faith much more in denying protection to the exercise of any profession which it inforceth the Heathen Emperors exceeded not their Power but onely abused it having granted afore that a man is free to chuse for himself that is not countable for his Religion to his Soveraign For if it once be said that God granteth all men all freedom in the choice of their Religion it cannot
estates but offering the first fruits of them to the maintenance of it yet still was the Eucharist frequented at these occasions as it was first instituted by our Lord as by the express words of Tertullian we understand that it was even in his time But when the number of Christians so increased that the use of the like communion could not stand with the maintenance of the world which Christianity supposeth when the same discipline could not prevail in so vast a body which had ruled at the beginning is it then any marvail to see these Feasts of love laid aside whether with the Eucharist or without it and the Sacrament of the Supper of our Lord become so unfrequented at Supper that it is strange to the rest of Christendom to see it so used in Egypt on Maundy Thursday in remembrance meerly of the primitive custome What shall we say of the order of Widows whereof S. Paul writeth Is it not manifest that there was then a necessity of such persons as might give attendance upon the sick and poor and impotent of every Church that might minister hospitality to those strangers that should travail by every Church and were to receive entertainment according to the custome And is it not manifest that when Christianity increasing daily oblations could not serve for this purpose but standing indowments were to be provided this course could not serve the turn nor the office continue necessary when the work ceased There is nothing more evident then that which I have said in another place concerning the rigour of Penance under the Apostles Nothing to intimate that they forbade any sinne how grievous soever to be admitted to reconcilement with God by the Church Many evident Arguments that they left it in the power of the Church to grant it or not But the increase of Christianity abating the sincerity and zeal of Christians made it so necessary to abate of that rigour and to declare free access even for Adulterers Murtherers and Apostates to the worship of Idols that Montanus first and afterwards the Novatians are justly counted Schismaticks for departing from the Church upon that which the change of times made necessary for the preservation of unity in it Which the Donatists remain much more liable to breaking out afterwards upon a branch of the same cause Yet is nothing more evident to them that use not the unction of the sick then that instance For what is or what can be alleadged why an expresse precept of the Apostles backed with the uninterrupted practice of the Church should not take place but the appearance that the reason for which it was commanded ceaseth the miraculous curing of bodily sickness no more remaining in the Church and so drawing after it the ceremony which signified procured it But in S. Pauls dispute of womens covering their heads in the Church the case is not so clear unless we admit two suppositions both evident upon the credit of Historicall truth The first that neither Jews Greeks or Romanes ever used or knew what it meant to uncover the head in sign of reverence What use soever they made of Hats or Caps as they had use of them though not to continue all as we have seeing you never find that they put them off in sign of reverence it is impossible that keeping them on should be understood among them for a sign of irreverence And therfore that the whole dispute nothing concerns the question of preaching with a Hat or a Cap on in the Church The second is that which we learn by Tertullians Book de Velandis Virginibus The subject whereof being that Virgins are not exempted by any priviledge from vailing their faces in the Church is argued by consequences drawn from this dispute of S. Paul And namely it is alledged that in the Church of Corinth at that time according to S. Pauls order they vailed their faces Whereby it appears that S. Paul was understood to speak of a vail which covering the head came down before the face which S. Paul therefore one while calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another while 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that which is so upon the head as it comes down before the face in English a vail And so Clemens Alexandrinus and others understand it This being the case what is the reason which ceasing the precept thereupon may be thought to cease Surely nothing else but because those Christians which overcame the Romane Empire did not think that civility and the modesty of women required them to keep their faces vail'd as the opinion and custome of Jews Greeks and Romanes to whom S. Paul preached did require And though he argueth that nature which teacheth women every where to let their haire grow at length teaches them to vail their faces because even unclothed they are provided of a vail yet when he addeth If any man be contentious we have no such custome neither the Chuches of God It is manifest he intends no law of Nature but an inference which civility making from Nature was fit to be maintained by the custome of the Church as that custome for the unity of the Church But when those Nations whose civility had not made the same inference received Christianity is it marvail that Christianity should not impose that upon them which being no part of Christianity had no ground unlesse they would be bound to receive the civility of other Nations upon the account of the common Christianity In the decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem prohibiting the Gentilish Christians things sacrificed to Idols strangled and blood it appeareth by the disputes of sundry learned men admitting the Jews Tradition that all the Sonnes of Noe received seven precepts from God which when other Nations fell away to Idols remained visible onely in the practise of such as not being Jews nor circumcised are neverthelesse in sundry places of the Law allowed to live among them in the Land of promise under the name of the stranger within the Gates For this allowance was upon condition of undertaking these seven precepts When therefore Gentiles were admitted to Christianity with Jews and the question resolved that they were free of the Law of Moses and yet an expedient was requisite not to scandalize the Jews by the use of that freedom that Jews and Gentiles might the more kindly joyn in one Church it appears that the precept of blessing the name of God that is worshipping God was sufficiently provided for by the Christian faith The precepts of maintaining Courts of Judicatures and of forbearing rapine were sufficiently provided for by the Government of the Empire and the precept of the Sabbath out of date under the Gospel It remaineth therefore that by prohibiting things sacrificed to Idols and fornication with that which was strangled and blood the Apostles establish such compliance between Jewish and Gentilish Christians as was in use between Jews and strangers Proselytes in the Land of promise Not as if
Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
to provide for themselves such an order in the communion of Christianity as may stand with the Scriptures and the unity of the Church though without consent of the whole Church of the present time For it is evident that this disorder may be so great in the Laws of the Church as to make them uselesse and unserviceable not onely to the profession of the true faith or to the service of God for which the communion of the Church standeth but even to the unity of the Church it selfe which is the prime precept that all which the Church does ought to aim at It is evident also that this is the true cause which the reformation hath to dispute against the Church of Rome But this I say that though particular Churches must necessarily have their particular Lawes which are the differences which severall Churches observe in the exercise of the same Ordinances yet may not any particular Church make it selfe any Law which may tend to separation by disclaiming the unity of the whole Church or either expresly or by due construction denying the same This is done by abrogating Apostolicall Traditions as inconsistent with Christianity for the mater of them not because the reason and ground of them is ceased For they who disclaim the Authority of the Apostles cannot acknowledge the unity of the Church And they who make Apostolical Ordinances inconsistent with Christianity do necessarily disclaim the Authority of the Apostles The same is done by abrogating the constitution of the Church done by virtue of the Authority left it by the Apostles For to disclaim the Church in this Authority is to disclaim the Apostles that left it And though this Authority may be so abused that particular Churches that is to say parts of the whole Church may thereby be authorized yea obliged to provide for themselves without the consent of the whole yet not against the authority of the whole that is to say of the Apostles from whence it proceedeth Nor is every abuse thereof a cause sufficient to warrant the scandals that such proceedings necessarily produce And this shall be enough for me to have said in this place Having I suppose established those principles by the right application whereof he that can make it may judge what is the true plea whereby that separation which the reformation hath occasioned must either be justified or be thought unjustifiable From that which hath been said the difference between Heresie and Schisme and the true nature of both crimes in opposition to Christianity may and ought to be inferred in this place because it ought not to be forgotten which ought daily to be lamented that at the beginning of the troubles it was questioned in the Lords House whether there were any such crimes or not or whether they were onely bug-bares to scare Children with and that hereupon every man sees England over-run with both The word Heresie signifies nothing but Choice and therefore the signification of it is sometimes indifferent importing no more then a way of professing and living which a man voluntarily chuseth as S. Paul useth it when he saith That he lived according to the most exact Heresie of the Iewes Religion a Pharisee Act. XXVI 5. For it is known that besides the necessary profession of the Jews Law there were three sects which no man by being a Jew was obliged to but by his own free choice the Pharisees the Sadduces and the Essenes which being all maintained by the Law as it was then used the common name of them cannot signifie any crime among them to whom S. Paul then spoke whatsoever we believe of the Sadduces And thus it sounds among them who use it to signifie the Sects of the Grecian Philosophers allowed by those who imbraced them not As in the Title or Lucians discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But because it is too ordinary for men of their own choice to depart from the rule to which they are or ought to stand obliged thereupon the word is most part used to signifie the free choice of a rule of living contrary to that rule which they stood obliged to before In which sense Adam is called by Tertullian the first Heretick as he that first departed from the will of God to live according to his own Supposing now that Christianity obliges both to the rule of faith and to the society of the Church by virtue of that rule because the beliefe of the Catholick Church is part of it as hath been declared afore it is manifest that whosoever dis-believes any part of that rule the beliefe whereof is the condition upon which a man becomes a Christian and thereby forfeits his interest in those promises which God hath made to Christians doth or may either lead others or follow in living according to that belief which he chooseth whether professing it as a Christian ought to profess his Christianity or not And in this sense it seems to be used by S. Paul when he sayes Titus III. 10. 11. A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition avoid Knowing that such a one is turned aside and sinneth being condemned by himselfe For when he speaks of admonishing them he signifies that he speaks not of such as had actually departed from the communion of the Church but sheltred themselves under the common profession of Christians doing every thing as they did that by such means they might inveigle such as suspected nothing to admit their infusions which I showed before to have been the fashion of the Gnosticks whose Doctrines the Apostle 1 Pet. II. 1. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pestilent Heresies And whom S. Paul must needs speak of in this place because there were no other on foot so as to be mentioned by their writings Such a one then the Apostle saith is condemned by himselfe in the same sense as the Councills and Chuch-Writers say of one in the same case in seipsum sententiam dixit He hath given sentence against himselfe because by refusing the second admonition he hath declared himselfe obstinate in that which the common Christianity maketh inconsistent with the communion of the Church And this more proper to the circumstance of this text then S. Jeroms interpretation of those that condemn themselves to be put out of the Church by voluntarily leaving the communion of it though that also is not farre from truth concerning them who are properly signified by the generall name of Hereticks For it is very evident that when S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XI 17. There must be Heresies among you his meaning is onely of such factions as tended to Schism whereof he admonisheth them 1 Cor. I. 10. That there be Schisms among them Now it is manifest how much difference there is between him who holdeth something contrary to the faith and yet departeth not from the communion of the Church and him that departeth from the commnion of the Church though holding nothing contrary to the substance of
the Christian Faith The one forfeiteth his interest in Heaven by the inward act of his soul refusing the common faith which saveth all Christians though outwardly holding communion with the Church The other by the inward act of the soul proceeding to the outward act of dissolving the communion of the Church which the common charity of Christians in the first place is to maintain If both these crimes may come under the the common name of Heresie because inward misbelief naturally tendeth to make a sect of such as shall profess to live according to it no marvail if all divisions of the Church be commonly called both Heresies and Schisms whatsoever be the cause upon which they divide If meer schisms that is where the cause is not any thing necessary to the salvation of all to be believed be also Heresie in the Language of the Apostles Neverthelesse there being so much difference between the two crimes and the grounds of them it is necessary to understand setting aside all aequivocation of terms that there is a crime consisting in mis-believing some Article of the faith which if you please may properly be called Heresie And another consisting in dissolving the unity of the Church which is properly called Schism when there is no further pretense for it then some Law which the Church being able to make the other part will rather depart then admit There may divisions in the Church upon pretence of such doctrines as are not necessary to the salvation of all and so no part of the rule of faith but so evidently to be deduced from it and from the rest of the Scriptures that the Church may have cause to determine the same and yet others may choose rather to depart from the Church then suffer the determination thereof to take place Which divisions that memorable observation of S. Jerome seems to call Heresies which said that all Schisms naturally devise to themselves some Heresie that is some doctrine extravagant from the doctrine of the Church that they may seem not to have departed from the Church for nothing Which is very well exemplified by S. Austine in the Donatists But whether such divisions are to be counted Heresies or Schisms both names properly signifying all divisions of the Church and only that crime which consisteth in mis-believing some Articles of faith appropriating the name of Heresie because common use hath given it no peculiar name of its own I leave to him that shall please to determine it Supposing these things it will not be requisite for me to say much to that which hath been published concerning the nature of Schism of late That being to be had onely out of the Scripture it is no where there to be had but in S. Paul to the Corinthians That there was at Corinth when S. Paul writ onely one Congregation of Christians which he calleth the Church of Corinth That therefore there is no crime of schism but in breaking one Congregation into more As for any visible society of the Catholick Church acknowledging the materials men that professe Christianity which he that sees cannot believe to the form which is that unity which is visible he is as great a stranger as if he had never heard of the Creed acknowledging notwithstanding an invisible unity in the common faith and love of Christians upon perswasion whereof he challenges as great freedom from schism as ever any member of the Catholick Church could claim For having showed how a thing which God made visible for many ages may reasonably be expected to be found in the Scriptures I am not to yield to try it by any part of them knowing that whosoever evidenceth a society of the Church by Gods Law evidenceth the crime that consists in the dissolving of it And it were fit we were told how all the Christians in a City where God had much people should sit at one Table or at least sup in one room before we believe that there was then no more Christians at Corinth then could assemble at once Which if I did believe I would notwithstanding alledge Iustine the Martyrs words Apol II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 On the day called Sunday all that dwelt in Cities or in Countries assemble themselves in one And supposing that then there were more Christians in Rome and the Territorie thereof for example for he writes to the Emperour Antoninus then could meet together in one place As Iustine means not when he saies That all in Cities or Countries meet in one that all made one Assembly but met all in common assemblies I would thereupon argue that no more does S. Paul say when he gives these rules to the Corinthians 1 Cor. XI 14. which serve any assembly that there was then but one Congregation at Corinth If in Iustines time if afore if after he can show me any Church of Rome or any City beside Rome that contained not all the Christians of that City and the Territory thereof I will believe that when Clemens writ the Letter lately published from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth there were no more Christians at Rome or at Corinth then could meet all at once But if in all the Scripture as well as in all the Records of the Church a Church signifie the university of Christians which one City and the Territory thereof containeth it is an affront to common sense for him to deny that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Church that is contained in the City and Territory of Rome or Corinth Let the learned Publisher of that Epistle take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there for Inquilinus or Peregrinus in Inmate or Pilgrim because his Greek gave him leave he that hath been showed so plentiful mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the subject in question for that which we now call a Diocese can have no reason to see with his eyes but because he is resolved not to use his own For in the very address of Polycarpus his Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Church of God dwelling beside Philippi The dative case quite spoils the construction of the words to his sense If the Church of the Philippians dwelt near Philippi then the Christians of the Territory belonged to the Church of the City As for the visible unity of the Catholick Church it was not so easie for me to evidence that which could not be questionable till the difference between Catholick Church and true Church came to be questionable As it is not hard for any Christian to question whither the Church which was Catholick for so many ages ought now to be Catholick or not For till he have destroyed the evidence which this abridgement hath been able to advance and when that is done new evidence will not be wanting so long as the records of the Church are Historically true and men continue possest of common sense it is in vain to alledge the dictate of his own
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
manifest to those that dedicate themselves to the examining of the Word according to the rate of that leisure and forwardnesse which they bestow upon their exercise in it Athanasius Disp. cum Ario in Conc. Nic. if it be his speaking of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Scriptures clearly declare all things And not onely that which was in debate S. Chrysostome in Lazarum Hom. III. incourages to reade the Scripture because it is not obscure the Gentiles that sought vain-glory by writing books affecting obscurity as the way to be admired but the Holy Ghost seeking the good of all contrariwise In â—oan Hom. II. hee compares S. Johns doctrine to the Sun as shining to all not onely men of understanding but women and youths In Mat. Hom. I. to the same purpose Epiphanius Haer. LXXVI 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all is clear in Gods Scriptures to those that will come to the Word of God with godly reason and turn not themselvs down the precipices of death through lust wrought in them by the devil To the same purpose Haer. LXIX Gregory Nyssene in Psalm Inscriptiones I. commendeth the Psalms for rendring deep mysteries easie and pleasant to men and women young and old Cyril in Julianum VII answering his scorn of the Scriptures for their vulgar language saith it was so provided that they might not exceed any mans capacity Fulgentius according to S. Austine Sermde Confessoribus Ita suae moderationis tenet temperiem ut nec ovibus desint pabula nec pastoribus alimenta The Scripture holds this moderation in the temper of it that neither the sheep wants food nor the shepherd nourishment in it S. Chrysostome observes that when S. Paul sayes 2 Cor. III. 14. Their senses are blinded in reading the Scriptures Hee makes the cause to be in the Jewes blindenesse when they understand not in the Scriptures Again Origen in Mat. Tract XXV in Rom. III. S. Basil Moral definitione XXV S. Chrysostome in Psal XCV S. Cyril Catech. IV. Rufinus in Symb. agree in affirming that whatsoever is taught in Christianity is to be proved by the Scriptures S. Jerome in Mic. I. Ecclesia Christi quae habitat bene in toto orbe Ecclesias possidens spiritus unitate conjuncta est habet urbes Legis Prophetarum Evangelii Apostolorum non est egressa de finibus suis id est de Scripturis sanctis The Church of Christ being well seated and having Churches all over the world it hath the Cities of the Law the Prophets the Gospel and the Apostles goes not out of her bounds which are the Holy Scriptures Optatus V. putting the case of the Church with the Donatists to be the case of children about their Fathers inheritance sends them to his Will as the Judge of their pretenses And so S. Austine also in Psalmum XXI The Constitutions of the Apostles II. 19. Leo Epist XXIII S. Cypr. Epist LXVIII and many more agree that the People are to answer for themselves if they follow bad Pastors S. Austine adversus Maxim III. 14. Neque ego Nicenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praejudicaturus proferre Concilium Scripturarum authoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utriusque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causâ ratio cum ratione decertet Neither am I to produce the Council of Nicaea nor you that of Ariminum for a prejudice With authorities of the Scriptures as witnesses common to both not proper to either let mater contend with mater reason with reason cause with cause De Vtilitate credendi VI. hee saith the Scripture of the Old Testament ità esse modificatam ut nemo inde haurire non possit quod sibi satis est si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè ut vera religio poscit accedat Is so tempered that any man may draw out of it that which is enough for him if hee come devoutly and piously as true religion requires to draw Vincentius Commonit I. confesseth that inveterate Herâ—â—es and Opus imperfectum in Mat. Hom. XLIX that the corruptions of Antichrist are not to be convinced but by Scripture The same Vincentius Commonit I. and Sulpitius Severus Hist II. acknowledg the Arians to have over-spread the greatest part of the Church Theâ—efore Nazianzene Orat. advers Arianos scorns them that measure the Church by number And Liberius in Theodoret Eccles Hist II. 16. answers Constantius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cause of the Faith hath never a whit the worse because I am alone But truly I know nothing in all antiquity more peremptory against the Infallibility of the Church than that of Vineentius denying that the Rule of Faith can ever increase or Councils do any more in it than determine that expresly and distinctly which was simply held from the beginning Commonit I. And S. Austine de Vnitate Ecclesiae cap. XVI challenges the Donatists to demonstrate their Church out of the Scriptures S. Ambrose de Incarnatione cap. V. S. Hilary de Trinitate VI. Victor in Marcum cap. III. agree that the Faith is the foundation of the Church by virtue whereof the gates of Hell prevail not against it Therefore S. Austine de Bapt. contra Donat. II. 3. acknowledges that not onely particular Councils are corrected by General but that of General Councils the later may and do correct them that went afore Again Irenaeus III. 1. affirms that the Apostles writ what they preached by the will of God for the foundation and pilar of our Faith Tertulliane de Prâ—script cap. VIII Cùm credimus nihil ultrà desideramus credere Hoc enim prius credimus non esse quod ultra credere debeamus When wee believe wee desire to believe nothing else For first wee believe that there is nothing further which wee ought to believe So cap. XIV XXIX contra Hermog cap. XXII Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina that the world was made of mater preexiâ—ent Si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus definitum Let the shop of Hermogenes show it written If it be not written let it fear the wo decreed for them that adde or take away Apollinaris in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 10. is afraid to write least hee should seem to write or injoyn more than the Gospel to which nothing is to be added or taken from it S. Basil de Fide sayes it is plain apostasie to bring in any thing that is not written And in Asceticis Reg. LXXX proves it because faith is by Gods Word and that which is not of faith is sin So likewise S. Ambrose de Paradiso cap. XII alleging Apoc. XXII 19. S. Austine de Bono Viduitatis I. Sancta Scriptura doctrinae nostrae Regulam figit The Holy Scripture prescribes a Rule to our doctrine To the same purpose de peccatorum remiss II. 36. S. Cyril de Trinitate personâ Christi whose words Damascene uses de Orthod Fide
I. 1. Theodoret in Levit. Quaest IX Theophilus II. Paschali S. Jerome in Psal XCVIII Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare ex Scripturis Sanctis Whatsoever wee say wee are to prove out of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in Mat. XXIII in Aggaei I. Origen in Mat. Tract XXIII That wee are to silence gain-sayers by the Scriptures as our Lord did the Sadduces Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem ostendit facta I adore the fulness of the Scripture which showes mee both the Maker and what hee made saith Tertulliane contra Hermog cap. XXII S. Austine de peccat meritis remiss II. 36. Credo etiam hinc divinorum eloquiorum claerissima autorit as esset si homo sine dispendio promissae salutis ignorare non posset I believe there would be found some clear authority of the Word of God for this the original of mans soul if a man could not be ignorant of it without losse of the salvation that is promised In fine seeing it is acknowledged that the Scripture is a Rule to our Faith on all hands the saying of S. Chrysostome in Phil. III. Hom. XII is not refusable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Rule is not capable of adding to or taking from it For so it looseth being a Rule For the same reason S. Basil in Esa II. and Ascet Reg. I. condemns all that is done without Scripture On the other side in the next place a greater thing cannot be said for the Church than that which Tertul. contra Marc. IV. 2. S. ser Ep. LXXXIX S. Aust cont Faust XXVIII 4. have said that S. Pauls authority depended upon the allowance of the Apostles at Jerusalem Tertul. Denique ut cum auâ—oâ—ibus contuâ—â—t convenit de regulâ Fidei dextras miscuere In a word as som as hee had conferred with men in authority and agreed about the Rule of Faith they shook hands S. Jer. Ostendens se non habuisse securitatem praedicandi Evangolii nisi Petri caeterorum Apostolorum qui cum eo erant fuisset sententia roboratum Showing that hee had not assurance to preach the Gospel had it not been confirmed by the sentence of Peter and the rest of the Apostles that were with him S. Austine That the Church would not have believed at all had not this been done Among the sentences of the Fathers which make S. Peter the rock on which the Church is built the words of S. Austine contra partem Donati are of most appearance Ipsa est Petra quam non vincunt superbae inferorum Portae This Church of Rome is the Rock which the proud gates of Hell overcome not S. Jerome is alleged hereupon consulting Damasus then Pope in maters of Faith as tied to stand to his sentence Epist LVII and Apolog. contra Rufinum Scito Romanam fidem Apostolicâ voce landatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere Etiamsi Angelus aliter annunciet quà m semel praedicatum est Petri authoritate munitum non posse â—â—utari Know that the Faith of Rome commended by the voice of the Apostle is not liable to such tricks Though an Angel preach otherwise than once was preached that being fortified by the authority of S. Peter it cannot be changed The saying of S. Cyprian is notorious Non aliunde haereses orta sunt aut nata schismata nisi indè quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Saeerdos ad tempus Judex Christi vice cogitatur cui si secundum magisteria divina fraternit as obtemperaret universa nemo adversùm Sacerdotum Collegium quicqam moveret nemo discidio unit atis Christi Ecclesiam scinderet Heresies spring and Schisms arise from no cause but this That the Priest of God is not obeyed that men think not that there is one Priest in the Church one Judg in Christs stead for the time Whom if the whole Brother-hood did obey as God teacheth no man would move any thing against the College of Priests or tear the Church with a rent in the Vnity of it The authority which the Church giveth to the Scripture is again testified by S. Austine contra Epist fundamenti cap. V. Cui libro necesse est me credere si credo Evangelio Quum utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendet authoritas Which book of the Acts I must needs believe if I believe the Gospel Catholick authority alike commending to mee both Scriptures To the same purpose contra Faustum XI 2. XIII 5. XXII 19. XVIII 7. XXVIII 2. XXXIII ult Therefore hee warns him that reads the Scriptures to preferr those books which all Churches receive before those which onely some And of them those which more and greater Churches receive before those which fewer and lesse So that if more receive some and greater others though the case hee thinks doth not fall out the authority of them must be the same And contra Cresconium II. 31. Neque enim sine causâ tam salubri vigilantiâ Canon Ecclesiasticum constitutus est ad quem certi Prophetarum Apostoloruus libri pertineant quos omnino judicare non audoamus For neither was the Rule of the Church settled with such wholesom vigilance without cause to which certain books of the Prophets and Apostles might belong which wee should dare on any terms to censure Where manifestly hee ascribeth the difference between Canonical Scripture and that which is not to an act of the Church settling the same Of the Power of the Church to decide Controversies of Faith all the Records of the Church if that will serve the turn do bear plentifull witnesse But the evidence for the gift of Infallibility from them seems to consist in this consequence That otherwise there would be no end of Controversies neither should God have provided sufficiently for his Church S. Austine contra Cresconium I. 33. Quisquis falli met uit huyus obscuritate quaestionis Ecclesiam de illâ consulat quam sine ullâ ambiguitate Scriptura sacra demonstrat Whosoever is afraid to be deceived by the darkness of this question concerning Rebaptizing let him consult the Church about it which the Holy Scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity S. Bernard Epist CXC ad Innoc. II. Papam Opertet ad vestrum referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque scandala emergentia in regno Dei ac praesertim quae de fide contingunt Dignum namque arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna Fidei ubi non possit Fides sentire defectum All dangers and scandals that appear in the kingdome of God are to be referred to your Apostleship For I conceive it sitting that the decaies of the Faith should there especially be repaired where the Faith is not subject to fail As concerning the mater of Traditions wee are not to forget Irenaeus III. 2 3 4. where hee showes that the Gnosticks scorning both Scripture and Tradition as coming from those that knew not Gods minde
provided a visible Judg infallible in determining Controversies of Faith either because originally his goodnesse requires it or because wee cannot suppose that men can be obliged to imbrace the Gospel upon other terms It is sufficient that having given the Scriptures hee hath over and above provided the Communion of the Church to preserve the Rule of Faith and the Laws of the Church in the sensible knowledg and common practice of all Christians that the means of salvation might be sufficient and yet men remain subject to trial whether they would render them uneffectual or not to themselvs and the rest of mankinde I confess indeed it would be much for the ease of the parties and would shorten their work very much if it might be admitted for a presumption that all things necessary are clear in the Scriptures or that the Church is an infallible Judg in Controversies of Faith For then the superficial sound of the words of Scripture repeated by rote in the Pulpit or out of the Pulpit would serve to knock the greatest question on the head without any advise what difficulties remain behind undecided upon no lesse appearances in Scripture On the other side a decree of the Council of Trent would serve to put the Scripture to silence without any proffer to satisfie the conscience that is moved with the authority thereof equally obliging with our common Christianity with the sense of the Church on the same side to boot Thus much is visible that they whose businesse it is in England to reconcile souls to the Church of Rome finde their work ready done when they have gained this point and men all their lives afore grounded upon contrary reasons in the particulars which are the subject of the breach change their profession without any coutrary resolution in those particulars that is their former grounds remaining in force Surely nothing were more desirable than a ready and short way to the truth in things so concerning But to pretend it upon a ground which if any thing can be demonstrative in this kinde is demonstratively proved that it cannot be true To wit the authority of the Church decreeing without means to derive that which it decreeth from the motives that should evidence it to be revealed by God This I say to pretend is no better than an Imposture And if this be true I remain secure of that which every man will object against the resolution which I advance that whereas the meaning of the Scripture alone is a thing too difficult for the most part of men to compasse I require further that it be assured by the records of the Church which are endlesse and which no mans industry can attain to know So that the meer despair of finding resolution by the means propounded will justifie to God him that followes probabilities as being all one in that case whether there be no truth or whether it cannot appear to those whom it concerns This Objection I say I do not finde so heavy upon mee that I have any cause to mince but rather to aggravate the difficulty of it having showed that the means provided by God to make evidence of the Faith to the consciences of particular Chaistians is not any gift of infallibility vested in any person or persons on behalf of the whole Church but the Unity of the whole Church grounded upon the profession of the same Faith as the condition of it For in all reason what Unity bindes that Division destroyes And whatsoever Unity contributes to the assurance of a Christian that hee is in the way to salvation so long as hee continues in the Unity of the Church that the Division of the Church necessarily derogates from the same assurance in him that cannot continue in that Unity which is once dissolved and yet believing the Scriptures and our common Christianity to be infallibly true cannot believe the parties to be infallible as they are And what hath hee that desireth the Unity of the Church to do but to aggravate that difficulty of attaining salvation which the division thereof produceth I do therefore grant and challenge as for mine own Interest that it is very difficult for unlearned Christians to discern the truth in those Controversies about which a settled division is once formed as now in the Western Church At least upon so true and so clear grounds as may assure them that they make their choice upon no other interest than that of Gods truth But I do not therefore yield to that which this difficulty it seems hath wrung from Vincentius Lerinensis with whom agreeth the Opus imperfectum in Mat. as you have them quoted afore That there is no means but Scripture to convince inveterate Heresies The reason whereof the later of those authors renders Because those Heresies have their Churches their Pastors and the succession of them and their Communion as well as Catholick Christians For hee supposeth Pastors lawfully constituted to have fallen away to those Heresies And truly the case of this difficulty was put when the Arian Faction had possessed so great a part of the Church that S. Gregory Nazianzene in the place afore quoted acknowledges that the true Church could not be judged by numbers With whom S. Hilary libro de Synodis agreeth But if the same Nazianzene scorn them that value the Church by numbers Liberius in the place afore quoted out of Theodoret revies it upon him in saying that the cause of the Faith could not suffer though hee were alone For not onely the Scriptures continue alwaies the same but though the present Church fail it follows not that the Tradition of the Whole Church must fail with it So long as the original sense of the Whole Church may be evident by the agreement thereof with the Scripture wee may discern what is Catholick without the sentence of the present Church And that which is not so to be discerned for Catholick wee may presume that our salvation requires us not to believe it And therefore Vincentius and his fellow are so to be understood that it is difficult indeed to make evidence to private Christians of Tradition contrary to that which they see received by Heresies And therefore that for the convicting of them in the truth recourie is to be had to the Scriptures But Vincentius who as I showed you acknowledges evidence for Tradition from written records of the Church need not have said that there is no means to convince inveterate Heresies but the Scriptures Be this difficulty then the evidence how much it concerns the salvation of all Christians that the Unity of the Church be restored That the choice of private Christians in maters concerning their salvation be not put upon the sentencing of those disputes the reasons whereof they are not able to manage For being restored upon agreement in those things which it is sufficient for all Christians to believe it will neither be easie for private Christians to frame to themselves opinions
that they were inspired by Gods Spirit or that the authors thereof ever spoke by the same And with this resolution the testimonies of Ecclesiastical writers will agree well enough if wee consider that to prove them to have the testimony of the Church to be inspired by God it is not enough to allege either the word or the deed either of Writers or Councils alleging the authority of them or calling them Holy Divine or Canonical Scriptures Nothing but universal consent making good this testimony which the dissent of any part creates an exception against For if those to whom any thing is said to be delivered agree not in it how can it be said to be delivered to them who protest not to have received it Wherefore having settled this afore that no decree of the Church inforceth more than the reason of preserving unity in the Church can require wee must by consequence say that if the credit of divine inspiration be denied them by such authors as the Church approveth no decree of the Church can oblige to believe them for such though how farr it may oblige to use them I dispute not here It shall therefore serve my turn to name S. Jerome in this cause Not as if Athanasius in Synopsi Melito of Sardis in Eusebius S. Gregory Nazianzene abundance of others both of the most ancient Writers of the Church and of others more modern who justly preferr S. Jerome in this cause did not reject all those parts or most of them which the Church of England rejecteth But because were S. Jerome alive in it there could be no Tradition of the Church for that which S. Jerome not onely a member but so received a Doctor of the Church refuseth For it will not serve the turn to say that hee writ when the Church had decreed nothing in it who had hee lived after the Council of Trent would have writ otherwise The reasons of his opinion standing for which no Council could decree otherwise Hee would therefore have obeyed the Church in using those books which it should prescribe But his belief whether inspired by God or not hee would have built upon such grounds the truth whereof the very being of the Church presupposeth Nor will I stand to scan the sayings of Ecclesiastical Writers or the acts of Councils concerning the authority of all and every one of these books any further in this place There is extant of late a Scholastical History of the Canon of the Scripture in which this is exactly done And upon that I will discharge my self in this point referring my Reader for the consent of the Church unto it And what importeth it I beseech you that they are called Sacred or Canonical Scriptures As if all such writings were not holy which serve to settle the holy Faith of Christians And though it is now received that they are called Canonical because they contain the Rule of our Faith and maners and perhaps are so called in this notion by S. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church Yet if wee go to the most ancient use of this word Canon from which the attribute of Canonical Scripture descendeth it will easily appear that it signifieth no more than the list or Catalogue of Scriptures received by the Church For who should make or settle the list of Scriptures receivable but the Church that receiveth the same it being manifest that they who writ the particulars knew not what the whole should contain And truly as I said afore that the Church of Rome it self doth not by any act of the force of Law challenge that the decrees of the Church are infallible So is it to be acknowledged that in this point of all other it doth most really use in effect that power which formally and expresly it no where challengeth Proceeding to order those books to be received with the like affection of piety as those which are agreed to be inspired by God which it is evident by expresse testimonies of Church writers were not so received from the beginning by the Church So that they who made the decree renouncing all pretense of revelation to themselves in common or to every one in particular can give no account how they came to know that which they decree to be true So great inconveniences the not duely limiting the power of the Church contrives even them into that think themselves therefore free from mistake in managing of it not because they think they know what they do but because they think they cannot do amisse It remaineth therefore that standing to the proper sense of this decree importing that wee are to believe these books as inspired by God neither can they maintain nor wee receive it But if it shall be condescended to abate the proper and native meaning of it so as to signifie onely the same affection of piety moving to receive them not the same object obliging Christian piety to the esteem of them it will remain then determinable by that which shall be said to prove how these books may or ought to be recommended or injoyned by the Church or received of and from the Church CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Original Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The Points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Jewes AS to the other point it is by consequence manifest that the Church hath nothing to do to injoyn any Copy of the Scripture to be received as authentick but that which it self originally received because it is what it is before the Church receive it Therefore seeing the Scripture of the Old Testament was penned first and delivered in the Ebrew Tongue for I need not here except that little part of Esdras and Daniel which is in the Chaldee the same reason holding in both that of the New in the Greek there is no question to be made but those are the authentick Copies Neither can the decree of the Council of Trent bear any dispute to them who have admitted the premises if it be taken to import that the Church thereby settleth the credit of Scripture inspired by God upon the Copy which it self advanceth taking the same away from the Copy which the author penned That credit depending meerly upon the commission of God and his Spirit upon the which the very being of the Church equally dependeth But it is manifest that it cannot be said that the said decree necessarily importeth so much because it is at this day free for every one to maintain that the Original Ebrew and Greek are the Authentick Copies the Vulgar Latine onely injoyned not to be refused in act of dispute or question which hindreth no recourse to the Originals for the determining of the meaning which it importeth Hee that will see this tried need go no further than a little book of Sorbonne Doctor called
communion with or obligation of dependance one upon another either in the Rule of Faith or service of God according to it wherein they may seem elder brothers to those who have put the like principle in practice among us though without supposing any other Rule of Faith then that which every Church so constituted shall agree to take for the sense of the Scriptures Now how soon it may come into the mind and agreement of a Church so constituted to take up the profession of Socinus for the Rule of their Faith I leave them that are capable to judge if yet we have no experience of it But I have observed by reading Socinus his Book de Christo Servatore one of the first if not the first of all the Books whereby he declared his heresie that being extreamly offended at his adversaries opinion he seems to have been thereby occasioned to fall upon another extream of denying the satisfaction of Christ and so by degrees his Godhead as the only peremptory principle to destroy the satisfaction of Christ and by consequence as well that reason of the Covenant of Grace which the Church as that which his adversary maintaineth Conceiving then his error about the Covenant of Grace to have occasioned his error in the Faith of the holy Trinity I conceive I shall handle the chiefe Controversies in Religion that divide the Church at present according to the title of my Book though I maintain not the faith of the Trinity against Socinus otherwise then as the maintenance of the Covenant of Grace grounded upon the satisfaction of Christ as that upon his Godhead shall require Another reason I had because this Heresie seems to be too learned to become popular among us though branches of it may come to have vogue For though there hath been but too much either of wit or Learning imployed in framing the Scriptures to the sense of it in the chiefe points of Christianity Yet is it hard to make the vulgar understanding not onely of hearers but of teachers such as these times allow capable of that sense to which they have framed the most eminent passages of the Scriptures and the grounds of it together with the consent and agreement of the severall points of Christianity among themselves according to it Upon this consideration I charge not my selfe with the maintenance of the Faith of the holy Trinity otherwise then as the consideration thereof shall be incident to resolve the nature of the Covenant of Grace which is the first part of my purpose Therefore that a few words may propose many and great difficulties from whence it comes and what it is that renders Christians acceptabe to God sand heirs of everlasting life who as men are his enemies by sinne here and â—ubjects of his wrath in the world to come this I conceive to be the sum of what we are to inquire Concerning in the first place that disposition of mind which qualifies a man for those blessings which the Gospel tenders upon that condition which the Covenant of Grace requires and in the second place whether this disposition be brought to passe in us by the free Grace of God and the helps which it provides or by the force of nature that is by that light of understanding and that freedom of choice which necessarily proceeds from the principles of mans nature It is well enough known how great dispute there is between them that professe the Reformation and the Church of Rome whether a man be justified before God in Christ by Faith alone or by Faith and Works both speaking of actuall righteousnesse or if we speak of habituall righteousnesse by Faith and Love For though the whole Garland of supernaturall vertues concurrs to the habituall righteousnesse of Christians which is universall to all objects actions Yet seeing the reason of them all is derived from that which Faith believeth and the intent of all referred to that service of God which love constraineth where Faith and Love are named there the rest may well be understood Whether Faith alone therefore or Faith and love so much the parties must in dispite of them remaine agreed in that there is some disposition or act of mans mind required by the Covenant of Grace as the condition that qualifieth a man at least for so much of that Promise which the Gospel tendreth as justification importeth But this being supposed and granted it may and must be disputed in what consideration it qualifieth for the same Which is to make short whether the inward worth of that disposition whatsoever it shall prove to be oblige Almighty God to reward it with that which the Gospel promiseth Or whether in consideration of the obedience of Christ performed in doing the message which he undertook of reconciling Man unto God he hath been pleased to proraise that reward which is without comparison more then can be due to that disposition which he requires as the condition to qualifie us for the promise Here must I relate the position of the Socinians concerning the intent of Christs comming Not to purchase at Gods hands those helps of Grace which inable Christians to become qualified for the promise which the Gospel tendreth which the Church with S. Austin in the dispute with the Pelagians cals therefore the Grace of Christ Not to reconcile us to God in the nature of a meritorious cause his obedience being the consideration for which God accepteth that disposition which qualifies us for the promise of the Gospel as the condition upon which he tenders it But to yield us sufficient reason both to perswade us of the truth of his message as by the rest of his works so especially by rising again from the dead and also to induce us to imbrace the Gospel by assuring us of the fulfilling of that promise to us which we see so eminently performed in him by that height to which we believe him to be exalted and then having induced us to undertake the Gospel of Christ to secure us both of protection against the enemies thereof here by that power which he that went before us in it hath obtained for that purpose and of our crown at the judgement to come And all this not in any consideration of the merits and sufferings of Christ but of Gods free Grace which alone moved him to deale with us by Christ to this effect and to propose a reward so unproportionable to our performance which would not redound to the account of his free Grace if it should be thought to have been purchased either by the satisfaction of Christ in regard of our sins to be redeemed or by his merits in regard of the reward to be purchased As for the matter of Justification by Faith alone it is to be observed that Socinus is obliged by the premises to understand that Grace for which the Gospel is called The Covenant of Grace to be no Grace of Christ that is to say not given out of any
man for Communion with the Church by Baptisme but of that which the Church professeth to have received from our Lord and his Apostles And this is the true ground of the foundation of the Church and the Society thereof whereof so much hath been said To wit that God giving his Gospel for the salvation of mankind did think fit to trust the guard and exercise of it to men once instructed by those to whom at the first he had given immediate Commission to publish and establish Christianity Rather then leave them to expect at his hands every day new revelations and miracles for introducing that which had once been sufficiently declared And also rather then leave every man to his own head to make what he can of the Scriptures and think he hath salvation by living according to it For supposing that Christianity which is delivered by the Scriptures once subject to be misunderstood and corrupted of which we have but too much experience an effectual course to preserve it will be to found a Corporation or Society of the Church the members whereof each in his owne ranck should remaine intrusted by God but by the meanes of their predecessors from whom they received Christianity to preserve both the profession of Christian truth and the exercise of Gods service inviolable Nor is it effectuall to say that the unity of the Church may fail being divided by Heresies and Schismes insomuch that that Baptisme which is visibly valide and good shall be void of that invisible effect which it pretendeth For it is not requisite that God should provide such meanes of salvation as may be undefeisible It is enough that they are reasonable He that is Baptized into a profession destructive to that which all Christians are bound upon their salvation to believe perishes for want of Faith setting aside the unity of the Church which his Herisie violates over and above But if the unity of the Church be of such advantage to the maintenance of our common Christianity as it was before the dissolving of it it is no marvaile if the Baptisme of Schismaticks though valide and good for the visible forme become voide of effect to them who by receiving it make themselves parties to the breach of the unity of the Church We agree that the Power of the Church of Rome is the occasion of many abuses in the Church What they are it is my present businesse to enquire He that bounds the interpretation of the Scriptures within the sense of the Catholike Church shall not transgresse the Law of Gods truth in that inquiry He that accepts the bounds of his own fansy in stead of them is it not just with God if he die If once common Christianity and the maintenance thereof depend so much upon the unity of the Church is it not reason that the benefit of it should depend upon the same he who having attained the true Faith and according to the same seeking the unity of the Church faileth of it without any fault of his owne if he who so seeketh it can be supposed to faile of it hath the difficulty of overcoming his own ignorance to pleade for his excuse But for them who have the consent of all Christians from the beginning to oblige them to undertake the profession of Christianity by Baptisme but out of hatred to the present Church the abuses of it neglect baptisme upon presumption that they have the holy Ghost without it or that the reason why the Apostles Baptized is now ceased I say that for them I suppose there remaines no just plea seeing that by the unity of the Catholike Church they ought to have been guided in judging what is of the abuse of the present Church and what is not And thus that consideration which some seeme to be not without cause scandalized at when these effects of Christianity the power whereof must necessarily consist in an unfained heart are made to depend upon an outward ceremony of Baptisme which the Church gives is utterly voided by that reason which the Apostle insinuates when he sayes that Baptisme saves us not the laying down of the filth of the flesh but that profession to God which is made with a good and a sincere conscience Whereas those that distinguish that faith which alone justifieth from the profession thereof which baptisme executeth oblige themselves to make Baptisme a ceremony not whereon the promises of the Gospel depend but to signifie that they are had and obtained without it But to whom signifie not to God who giveth them Not to him that has them and by his faith knows he has them Not to the Church which can never be certified that he hath them indeed and demands onely to be certified that he wants nothing requisite to presume him to be such So that Baptisme being required onely to presume that a man is a Christian and that presumption being legally had by any act the Church or any that call themselves the Church can require as well as by being Baptized If that be all there is no reason to be given the Sociniant why Baptisme should be necessary to the salvation of Christians and therefore why it should not be in their power to use it or not to use it And truly I do much marvel to see the Socinians that have very well seen the truth concerning the twofold meaning of the Law literall and spirituall and the promise of the land of Canaan tied to the carnall observation thereof as that of everlasting life to the spirituall obedience of it I say I do marvel to see that in consequence hereunto they should not inferre that God hath appointed a spirituall people of the Christian Church answerable to Israel according to the flesh and that his spirituall promises should depend upon the visible imtiation of eveâ—â— Christian into the body of that people as the right of his temporal promises depended upon their initiation into the body of carnall Israelites not according to birth but according to promise Onely when I consider on the other side that without regard to the Article of the Catholick Church which Christians make a part of their Creed they rest in such a communion as their private perswasion of the sense of the Scriptures shall be of force to produce I do not marvail to see them not owne the consequence of their own principles when they see it not stand with other prejudices which they have imbraced I know there are two things will be objected here the one is a meer prejudice that by maintaining of free will by maintaining the Covenant of Grace to consist in an act of it we shall incurre the Heresie of Pelagius The other that if the condition of the Covenant of Grace be an expresse profession vow and promise to live as well as to believe according to what Christ hath taught and that without the use of reason no such promise can be of force or take place then infants cannot
Apostle denies any man to be justified For all Christianity acknowledges that the Gospel is implied in the Law neither could the justification of the Fathers before and under the Law by Faith be maintained otherwise And therefore it is no strange thing to say that under the Law there were those that obtained that righteousnesse which the Gospel tendereth though not by the Law but by the Gospel which under the Law though not published was yet in force to such as by meanes of the Law were brought to embrace the secret of it But it cannot there-therefore be said that they were justified by the Law or by the works of it but by Grace and by Faith though the Law was a meanes that God used to bring them to the Grace of Faith And therefore when the Apostles inferences are imployed to fortifie this argument To wit that if a Christian be justified by works depending upon the Covenant of Grace then he hath whereof he may glory which Abraham that was justified by Faith had not Then hath he no meanes to attain that peace and security which the Gospel tendereth all having the conscience of such works as do interrupt it I do utterly deny both consequences For I say that the works that depend upon the Gospel are neither done without the Grace of God from whence the Gospel comes neither are they available to justify him whom the Gospel overtakes in sinne of themselves but by virtue of that Grace of God from whence the Gospel comes Now I challenge the most wilfull unreasonable man in the world to say how he that sayes this challenges any thing whereoâ— he may glory without God who acknowledges to have received that which he tenders from Gods gift and the promise which God tenders in lieu of it from his bounty and goodnesse To say how a man can be more assured that he is in the state of Gods grace then he can be assured of what himself thinks and does For not to decide at present how and how farre a man may be assured of Gods grace whatsoever assurance can be attained must be attained upon the assurance which a man may have of his own heart and actions and that as S Paul saies 1 Cor. 11. 10. No man knows what is in a man but the Spirit of a man that is in him For if it be said â—hat this assurance is from the Spirit of God and therefore supposes not so much as the knowledge of our selves I must except peremptorily that which I premised as a supposition in due place that no man hath the Spirit of God but upon supposition of Christianity And therefore no man can know that he hath the Spirit of God but upon supposition that he knows himself to be a good Christian otherwise it would be impossible for any man to discern in himself between the dictates of a good and bad Spirit seeing it is manifest that among those that professe Christianity many things are imputed to the Spirit of God which are contrary to Christianity Now of the sincerity of that intention wherewith a man ingages to live like a Christian a man may stand as much assured as he can stand assured of his own confidence in God or that he doth indeed believe himself to be predestinate to life And therfore it is no prejudice to that security and peace of conscience which the Gospel tendereth that it presupposeth this ingagement and the performance of it This answer then proceedeth upon these two presumptions That the grace of Christ which is the grace of God through Christ is necessary to the having of that faith which alone justifieth Which the heresy of Socinus denies with Pelagius And that it justifieth not of it self but by virtue of that grace of Christ that is the grace which God declares in consideration of his obedience These presumptions it is not my purpose to suppose gratis without debating the grounds upon which they are to be received having once purposed to resolve wherein the Covenant of Grace stands But I must have leave to take them in hand in their respective places and for the present to dispatch that which presses here which is to shew that the intent of S. Paul and the rest of the Scriptures which he expounds most at large is this That a Christian is not justified by the Law of Moses and those works that are done precisely by virtue thereof not including in it the Gospel of Christ but by undertaking the profession of Christianity and performing the same which is in his language by faith without the workes of the Law and therefore consequently by those workes which are done by virtue of this faith in performance of it And first I appeale to the state of the question in S. Pauls Epistles what it is the Apostle intends to evict by all that he disputes And demand who can or dare undertake that he had any occasion to decide that which here is questioned upon supposition that a Christian is justified by the Covenant of Grace alone which the Gospel tendereth Whether by Faith alone which is the assurance of salvation or trust in God through Christ Or by Faith alone which is the undertaking of Christianity and living according to the same For it is evident in the Scriptures of the Apostles how much adoe they had to perswade the Jewes who had received Christ that the Gentiles which had done the like were not bound to keep the Law which they it is evident did keep These had no ground had they understood from the beginning of their Christianity that their righteousnesse and salvation depended not upon the keeping of it under the Gospel of Christ It is evident that the trouble which Jewish Christians raised in the Churches to whom those Epistles are directed which dispute this point fullest upon occasion of this difficulty was the subject and cause of directing the same What cause then can there be why these Epistles should prove that a Christian is not justified by such works as suppose the Covenant of Grace when as the disease they pretend to cure consists in believing to be justified by the works of Moses Law which supposeth it not For it is evident that had it been received as now that Moses Law is void the occasion of this dispute in these Epistles had ceased what ever benefit besides might have been procured by them for succeeding ages of the Church Is it not plain that the pretense of S. Paul in the Epistle to the Romanes is this that neither the Gentiles by the Law of Nature nor the Jewes by the Law of Moses can obtaine righteousnesse or avoid the judgement of God and therefore that it is necessary for both to imbrace Christianity He that reades the two first chapters cannot question this In the fourteenth chapter together with the beginning of the fifteenth you shall find him resolving upon what terms these two sorts of Christians were to converse with one another And
infant should go out of the World unbaptized that is it which the great solicitude of Christians that no such thing should come to passe the provision that a Lay man might baptize in case of necessity which admitted not the solemnity of ministers of the Church the grief and astonishment which followed if at any time it came to passe will inable me not onely to affirm but to inferre both the reason of originall sinne which the baptisme of Infants cureth and the authority of the Apostles which it proclaimeth It may be sayd that Pelagius himself allowed and maintained the Baptisme of Infants to bring them to the kingdom of heaven not to everlasting life But this was but to make his own cause the more desperate For had any intimation of the Scripture any Tradition or custome of the Church justified any ground of difference between the kingdome of heaven and everlasting life he might have escaped by pleading it But being disowned in it he hath left a desperate plea for those that come after him to question the Baptisme of Infants and by consequence original sinne which if he so many hundred years agoe could have found ground for he need not have stood in the list of hereticks The visible ceremonies of Baptisme which are so resolutely pleaded by his adversaries for evidence of the same are effectual to the same purpose For if it was thought requisite on behalf of infants to renounce Satan and all his Pompe and angels and instruments of this world adhering to God Iâ— it were solemn by huffing and exorcizing to use the power which God hath given his Church over unclean Spirits for the chasing of them out of Infants that were baptized Certainly those that did it were so farre from thinking that man as he is born can be capable of that good Spirit which Baptisme promiseth that they thought him to be liable to the contrary To this argument I will adde the matter of that catechizing which the ancient Church prepared those for Baptism who pretended to it as I begun to shew you in the first book for it is in a great part repeated in divers of these ancient forms of celebrating the Eucharist which are yet extant under the names of the Liturgies of Apostles and Fathers which I have named in my book of the publick service of God The ancientest of them is that which is recorded in the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 11. But you find also there VII 40. the order of Catechizing those that are to be baptized providing that they be instructed in the mercy of God that suffered not mankind being turned from him to perish but in all ages provided meanes to recall them from sinne and error to truth and righteousnesse by the Fathers first and by the Law and Prophets afterwards untill all this proving ineffectuall he spared not at length to send his Sonne And the same is the argument of that Thanksgiving which is premised to the consecration of the Eucharist in the place quoted as also in the same work afore II. 55. and in the Liturgies to which I referre you An evidence in my opinion very considerable to shew this point to belong to the substance of Christianity as the subject mater both of that instruction which is requisite to make a man a Christiane and of both Sacraments wherein the exercise thereof consisteth In the second place I alledge such an evidence for the grace of Christ as no point of Christianity can produce better from the practice of the Church For I alledge the prayers of the Church all over and from the beginning that they have alwaies contained three things The first is of thanksgivings for our Christianity that is for the coming of Christ the preaching of his Gospel and the effect thereof in converting us to be Christians The second of prayers that we may be able to persevere in that to which we are so converted and to perform what we undertake by professing our selves Christians notwithstanding the temptations of our ghostly enemies to depart from it The third and last in that these thanks and prayers are tendered to God in Christ for his sake signifying the acknowledgment of his grace in bringing us to be Christians and the expectation of those helps by which we must persevere from the consideration of his merits and suffering For as for Prayers and thanksgivings in generall it cannot be said that the offering of them can argue either the decay of our nature or the repairing of the same by Christ because those that acknowledge not Christ Jews and Mahumetans must and do use them if they pretend Religion and the service of God yea even Pagans according to their sense But to pray and give thanks to God to make men or because he hath made men Christians or for the helps of salvation which by being Christians that iâ— by Christ we attaine to as by him we attaine to be Christians must needs appear utterly groundlesse unlesse we suppose that there was no other way left for our salvation which cannot be understood by any meanes but by the fall of Adam and the consequences thereof to come to passe In the last place I alledge the decrees of the whole Church against Pelagius together with the consent of those parts of the Church which otherwise cannot be understood to be concluded by those decrees For it is manifest there was no decree of the whole Church against Pelagius as against Arius The Councils of Carthage and of Numidia that of Palestine and in aftertimes that of Orange being but particular Councils not containing the consent of the whole But this consideration in another regard turns to the advantage of the Churches cause For when those parts of the Church which are not obliged by the decrees do voluntarily and freely joyne in giving effect to them as it is manifest they did at that time by the concurrence of the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria and the great Council of Ephesus in Vossius Hist Pel. I. 38 39 47. and do since by owning the acts done against them there can be no pretense of faction to sway them to go along with those whom they are loth to offend but all must be imputed to the sense of that Christianity which hitherto they found themselves perswaded of and therefore agreed not to admit to their Communion those who acknowledged it not which is the effect of all such decrees of the Church In the mean time I forget not the records of the Church in writing that is the testimonies of those writers who going before Pelagius and giving testimonie against him cannot be thought to joyne in faction to oppresse any truth which he preached And upon this evidence I challenge both the belief of originall sinne to be necessary to the acknowledgement of the grace of Christ which Christianity professeth and also that the grace of Christ is that which inables us to begin continue and finish the good
Catechising which the Church tendered those who stood for Baptisme the subject of that Thanksgiving which the Eucharist was consecrated with do more effectually evidence the common sense of Christians in the mater of our common Christianity then the sayings of divines being solicitous so to maintaine the grace of God that the free will of man which the interest of our common Christianity equally obligeth us justly to maintaine may suffer no prejudice How much more when it is to be justified that those sayings of divines expounded by other sayings of their owne and principles evidently acknowledged by themselves can create no other sense then the necessity of preventing grace might the Church be able and obliged to proceed to those decrees Though as for the persons whom we do not find involved in any further censure then the mark set upon their writings by the See of Rome as there is cause to think that respect was had to them because their principles did not really ingage them in any contradiction to the faith of the Church So is there cause to think that being better informed in it by the treaty of that Council they surceased for the future all opposition to the decrees of it For the evidence of that which hath been said in the point of fact I remit the reader to my author so oft named with these considerations pointing out the consequence of each particular His ingenuity learning and diligence is such that I have neither found my self obliged to quarrel at any thing that he hath delivered in point of historicall truth nor to seek for more then he hath laid forth And by that which hath been said we presume not that the preaching of the Gospel is not the grace of Christ which Pelagius acknowledged necessary to salvation but that the determination of the will to imbrace that grace which the grace of the gospel tendereth is not effected by the will alone without those helps of grace which are granted in consideration of Christ though depending upon the preaching of the Gospel and the reasons and motives which it tendereth to imbrace it Here then you see I might have made a great book to set forâ—h those things which are commonly alledged by those that write of the great dispute between grace and free will now on foot to show what the Church insisted upon and what reasons it did proceed upon against Pelagius But because there is no question made of all this by those that deny the consequences of it it shall serve my turne to have pointed out the reasons of those consequences and now to take notice of this great dispute which is come in my way so crosse that it is not possible for me to voide the difficulties which I have undertaken concerning the Covenant of Grace without voiding of it For having first shewed that the condition which the Covenant of Grace requires on our part consists in an act of mans free will to imbrace and persevere in Christianity till death And now that man is not able to perform this condition without the help of Gods grace by Christ The question is at the height how the act of free will depends upon Gods free grace and a man becomes intitled to the promise for doing that which without the help of Gods grace he cannot do And this the greater because if the help of grace determine the free will of them that imbrace and persevere in Christianity so to do then it seems the sinne and damnation of those that do not so is to be imputed to the want of those helps and Gods appointment of not giving them to those that have them not CHAP. XX. Wherein Originall sinne consisteth What opinions are on foot That it is not Adams sinne imputed to his posterity Whether man were at the first created to a supernaturall end or not An estate of meer nature but innocent possible Originall sinne is Concupiscence How Baptisme voids it Concerning the late novelty in the Church of England about Originall sinne THIS inquiry must begin with the question about originall sinne wherein it consists because thereupon depends the question of the effect and consequence thereof which is to say what is the estate wherein the Gospel of Christ overtakes the naturall man For it is well enough known that there is a question yet on foot in the Church Whether Originall sinne do consist in Concupiscence or in the want of Originall righteousnesse which having been planted in our first parents their posterity ought to have And whosoever thinks there can be little difficulty in this dispute little considers the difficulty that S. Augustine found in satisfying the Pelagians how Concupiscence can be taken away by Baptisme which all Christians find to remaine in the regenerate Seeing there can be no question made that Originall sin is taken away by Baptisme Christianity pretending to take away all sinne and Baptisme being the solemn execution of Christianity that is the solemn profession of the Christian faith This is evidently the onely difficulty that driveth so many of the Schoole Doctors to have recourse not onely to S. Anselms devise of the want of originall righteousnesse but to another more extravagant speculation of a state of pure nature which God might have created man in had he not thought more fit of his goodnesse to create him in a state of supernaturall grace that is to say indowed with those gifts and graces that might inable him to attaine that happinesse of the world to come which is now promised to Christians This state of pure nature they hold to be liable to concupiscence as the product by consequence of the principles of mans nature compounded of a materiall and spirituall a mortall and immortall substance and originally inclined the one to the sensual good of the body the other to the spiritual good of the soul here which the eternal good of it is consequent to in the world to come The nature of man liable to this condition they say was prevented by supernaturall grace as a bridle to rule and moderate the inclination of nature not to come into effect so long as so over-ruled But so that this grace being forfeited by the rebellion of Adam consequently it came into effect without more adoe and that by consequence originall sinne cannot consist in this opposition between the inclinations to sensuall and spirituall good which man hath but in the want of that grace from whence it proceedeth This controversie Doctor Field in his learned work of the Church counteth to be of such consequence that he maintaineth all the difference which the Reformation hath with the Churche of Rome about Justification free will the merit of good works and the fulfilling of the Law and the like to be grounded upon it so that there can be no cause of difference supposing it to be set aside His reason is because the opinion of Justification by inherent righteousnesse supposes that the reluctation of our sensuall
fire alwaies burn the earth alwaies keep the place truly we distinguish these things as necessary from those that come to passe either so or otherwise as having a presumption from so much experience of the wil of God which all things must obey already part upon the course of their nature bythe causes which being thereby produced cannot but by the same will be defeated But of this I do not see what question can remaine One kind of determination I shall grant upon the premises that the will of man is liable to that necessity which it inferreth not prejudicing the freedom of it I grant that the will necessarily followeth the last and ultimate dictate of the practick understanding setting this grant aside as impertinent to the question in dispute imports more then a judgement that it is best to doe or not to doe this or that For the last dictate of the understanding that advises about doing or not doing this or that or that it ought to be done or not don by him that will do as he ought For it is manifest that a man many times does not doe that which he is resolved that he ought to do And so it may fall out that such a dictate or sentence shall not be the last or ultimate dictate of the understanding because falling to advise anew after that sentence it may find some new consideration whereupon it may resolve to proceed otherwise then afore Therefore the last or ultimate dictate of the understanding cannot be understood to be any other then that which is effectuall that is to say when it is supposed that the effects followe upon it And upon these terms I grant that the will is necessarily determined by the last dictate of the understanding in as much as it is supposed to be necessary that the will be determined by some judgement of the understanding either expressely pronouncing or implicitly resolving that this or that is for the best to be done or not done So that he that saies that the will is necessarily determined by the last judgement of the understanding saies no more but this that the will is necessarily determined by that judgement which determines it For supposing it is the last you suppose that the will proceeds to action upon it So that the necessity which all this inferrs is no prejudice to freedome or contingence being only the necessity of that which must needs be because you suppose that it is The like is to be said of the foreknowledge or foresight which God hath of whatsoever shall at any time come to passe and the necessity which though it causeth not yet it inferreth For no man can know that which is not true nor see that which is not in being neither can that be foreseen which is not to have being at that time when it is foreseene to come to passe And therefore all foresight necessarily implies a supposition of the future being of that which is foreseen A thing necessarily true howsoever we suppose the will to be determined to do whatsoever it doth that is to say whatsoever we suppose to bee the ground of Gods foresight For supposing that God from everlasting foresaw that S. Paul should be converted at such a moment of time because he had a purpose from everlasting to determine his will freely to imbrace Christ at that moment of time yet was not S. Paul converted because God foresaw that he should be converted but because he was to be converted therefore God foresaw that he should be converted Indeed we are to distinguish three instances in the knowledg of God concerning future contingencies In the first he sees what may come to passe In the second what shall come to passe In the third what is come to passe The first by the perfection of his nature The second by the decree of his will giving stedy order to things of themselves moveable as Boethius says that is to contingencies For we suppose contingence to stand with providence and we inquire how that consistence may appeare The third by the act of freedome seene from everlasting before the will that doth it have being in those very decrees in the execution whereof providence consists There is in an architect or survayor of buildings a certain knowledg of that which he designeth before he goe to work consisting in a certaine Idea or form which his businesse is to copy out of his mind into the materialls But when his worke is done he sees that in being before his eyes which he saw in his own designe afore The wisdome of God is that soverain art which directed him in making heaven and earth and ordaining whatsoever comes to passe in both The decree of his will whether immediate or mediate distinguishes between that which may be and that which is at the present and therefore in the same sort between that which may be and that which shall be for the future But though his knowledge increase not when he sees that in being which formerly he saw was to be because he goes not beyond himselfe for the knowledge of it yet to see that it supposeth the act of the freedome which doth it past to see that it shall be to come In like maner therefore whilst the act of the creature appeareth to God as to come he seeth what shall be But if all future contingencies be present to God from everlasting then consequently he sees also from everlasting the act of that freedome which produceth them as don in the due time of it and in this sight consisteth the effect of the same presence of future contingencies in and to Gods eternity from everlasting There is therefore in God a certaine kind of knowledge of that which is to come which Divines call scientiam visionis whereby God sees from everlasting thegreatest contingencies to come to passe at that moment of time when we see them come to passe which whatsoever is the ground of it whether it be posible for us to say how it is possible or not yet this we must say of it that it presupposeth the future being of that which it foreseeth and therefore is no way the cause of it Though the future being thereof presupposeth also that knowledg in God which directeth that freedome which bringeth it to passe So that the Fathers of the Church had cause to insist against those Heretickes that derived the â—ourse and originall of sin in the world from some other cause then the freewill of the creature and the abuse of it that future contingencies come not to passe because God foretells that they will come to passe But that God foretells that they will come to passe because they are future contingencies that is things which though contingent yet shall come to passe therefore that Gods foresight infers no necessity in those things which he foresees shall come to passe by the free choice of the creature For though there remaineth yet a further question concerning
the later end of the world that God meant first to show the world that all other meanes which he thought fit to use to reclaime man by the fathers and by and under the Law were not to purpose that the necessity of his coming might appeare But that this is not to be understood as if God meant to render them inexcusable by using insufficient meanes that could not take effect But that dispensing to those times such meanes of grace as he found the reasons upon which his secret counâ—ailes proceed to require proportionable to the obedience and service which he required then at their hands He reserves the full measure of them to the coming of his Son proportionable to the difficulty of beraing his Crosse which he purposed for the condition of those promises which he brought And the same is to be said of the Fathers under the law of nature Which if we understand it to be so cailed as if the light of nature then taught and inabled them to please God we contradict not onely the faith hitherto maintained against Pelagius but also the appearances in Scripture of those revelations of that cpmmerce and inâ—rcourse with God whereby they advanced to the state of his friends The book of Iob to the time whereof we see this state lusted presenting most evident instances both of Gods correspondence with the Godly of the Gentiles and of Christians piety in their conversations Now to that state of inocence wherein Adam was created it must needs be a grace oâ— God to make knowne his will because it cannot be supposed that God should imploy his creature in his service and not reward him for doing it with advantage But not as if suck knowledg could give him ability but onely determine the matteâ— of his obedience who had nothing to hinder the doing of that which commanded by God must needs be for his advantage to do Since the fall if reasons provided by God to convince the understanding to incline the will to that which he purposeth for our happinesse may and would prove ineffectuall were they not acted and managed by the holy Ghost Let us not therefore so far miâ—â—ken the counsaile of God in providing them as to imâ—gine the worke is not done by them because it is his speciall grace that makes them effectuall to purpose The indowments of Adam how great soever thâ—y were the event sheweth that they might faile and hâ—d they not failed it must have been ascribed to God for a greater grace then those indowments in as much as these made him accountable to God that would have inâ—itled him to a reward So that by this account it will be no marvaâ—le that the grace of Christ which saveth us in and through this weakenesse of iâ—bred concupâ—scence should be counted greater then that which Adam had in his inâ—â—â—ncy And the same is to be said of the Angels that fell and those that stood How great soever their indowments were had not the motive whatsoever it was that prevailed with the one part to depart from God been prevenâ—ed of taking effect with the rest it might have come to passe as well in all as in some That it did not what can it be ascribed to all being turâ—â—shed with abilities fully corespondent to that which God required at theâ— hands but some dispensation of Gods secret counsail being by no reason of his declared Justice obliged otherwise Not that the Will of Adam or of Angels was not able to doe what God required and hâ—d done it of â—â— selfe without any help added by God But because so gâ—eat is the influence of the makers providence that the events thereof how justly soevâ—â— imputable to the choice of the creature must of necessity have their springs in and from the secret dispensation thereof not concerning his justice Seeing then that as I said before the opinion of Jansenius though it gives account wherein the grace of Christ formally consisteth yet gives no account from whence effectively it proceedeth but the immâ—diate wâ—ll of God â—he question demanding upon what ground it redounds to mans accâ—uâ—t Let them either look about them for a better reason or accept of thâ—s not a destrâ—ying that which it saith but to the introducing of that which it saâ—eth not For it is agâ—eed upon both waies that it is delight in true goodness for the love of God that makes the grace of Christs Gospell effâ—ctual in mens lives and conversations How by the act of that wil which in others rejects it â—â—ndevour to say what the scriptures and faith of the Church will allow But Jansenius his opinion goes no further then that so it is to wit because love is free therefore man is freâ—ly saved howsoever love be brought to passe But the necessity of those actions to which grace determineth which is antecedent in Jansenius his opinion the cause which is Gods will being undeâ—easible iâ— in mine onely consequent upon suposition of efficacy which implyes the being of that which comes to effect grounded upon the foreknowledg of God which supposes the free motion of the reasonable creature If the advantage be such in reconciling the efficacy of grace with the free will of the creature in reconciling the same with Gods foreknowledge and effectuall providence extending to all good and bad it will appeare much more For had Jansenius done his businesse in the mater of supernaturall grace he had not obliged us much unlesse his resolution were an overture to abate the generall difficulty thâ—t remaines But if he sends us for that to the predetermination of God which is said to be requisite upon the geneâ—all account of the creature and the indifference of mans will he leaves us to seeke for a reason how God is not the author of that sin which he determineth the will to do before it determine it selfe If we avoid that as Doctor Strang whom I spoke of before hath done by maintayning against Doctor Twisse that the will is not determined by God to the actions of sin Besides that he is to give account why the same providence of God which is generall to all things should be thought to teach this sort not that all actions as appendâ—nces of Gods creatures having the same dependence upon God which the prerogative of the first cause requi eth we are leâ—t to seeke how that foreknowledge of God which directeth his providence comes informed of the truth of future contingencies For if wee maintaine that the wisdome of God comprehending the inclinations of his creatures and all those considerations which outward occurrences or inward appearances shall present or not present them with to determine their choice cannot thereby cetainely discerne what will come to passe as Doctor Strang maintaines that so there cannot be in God any certtine knowledge of future conditionalls I leave to them that shall peruse this writing what satisfaction it is possible for him to give in the possibility of foreknowing
as to the Church but those whom the Church condemnes for some position which they had rather part with the Church then renounce Neither can it be said that ever there was any Sect expulsed the Church upon such cause That there was a Council held at Arles and after that another at Lions that decreed some thing about absolute predestination is as certaine as it is certaine that Faustus writ his book de gratia libero Arbitrio by commission from them for both are affirmed by the Preface which is of the same credit as the book But what was determined we cannot measure by the letter of Faustus to Lucidus which goes a longe with it Lucidus was a Priest whom Faustus moves to recant his opinion That God makes the greatest part of men on purpose to damne them This he does by a letter which he returnes to Faustus renouncing severall articles to that purpose but which he might have framed out of Faustus his book alwaies disowned For why might not Faustus be intrusted to write against the opinion and exceed his commission so far as to deny preventing grace And though Faustus his letter is subscribed by divers Bishops yet are they not the Councill nor do the subscriptions appeare in all copies As for the returne neither doth it appeare by the date nor by any other mark that it was approved or inacted by the Councill But granting it had the leter of Pope Celestine in â—avour of S. Austins doctrine must needs have given a check to the execution of it Which having decreed divers articles concerning the necessity of preventing grace in the end condemns the determining of difficult questions that incur upon the necessary dispute of preventing Grace And the II. council of Orange in the end is content to adde onely That if any man say that any man is predestinate to evill whether of sin or punishment the Synod declares him anathema Whereby as whatsoever Faustus or Cassiane might have said to the prejudice of preventing Grace is condemned by the Synod so that which the former Synod had said of predestination seems to be superseded and void by a greater authority of the See of Rome concurring with the Councile of Orange Which may be the reason why there is no further mention in antiquity oâ— the decrees of those Counciles which had they not decreed as some suppose Faustus would have heard of it by Maxentius who is so angry with the See of Rome that they made not the adversaries of S. Austin Hereticks I grant therefore that there was never any sect of Praedestinatians But I doe not therefore grant that ever there was any sect of Semipelagians Faustus or Cassiane might in opposition to absolute predestination mistake themselves so far as to deny prventing grace Some on the other side as he that writ the Treatise which Sirmondus his Praedestinatus confutes though some take it for his owne that confutes it might deserve the censure of those Counciles as the positions that prejudice preventing Grace are condemned by that of Orange and the writings of Cassiane and Faustus censured afterwards their persons remaining untouched upon conformity to the decree As for Godscalcus whom Hincmarus condemned by vertue of the Counciles of Arles and Lions which I think void I see there is opposition in point of right what ought to be held between Hincmarus and his party on the one side and Remigius of Lyons with his Whatsoever Godscalus his opinion truly was in point of fact And therefore the authority of the Church not being ingaged on either side I am at freedome to refuse absolut predestination to glory much more predetermination which is but one way to execute it admitting absolute predestination to grace And truly though I impute it for a charge to those that maintaine the determination of mans will by the immediate Act of God before it determine it selfe that they destroy freewill by pretending to maintaine it because the determining of it which they make the ground of freedome is indeed the ground of necessity which stands not with freedome which is no small fault in Divines yet as Christians I count them so much the lesse enemies to the Faith For in as much as they doe this under the pretense of establishing freedome it is manifest that they ground their salvation upon the Covenant of Grace which supposeth it And therefore think themselves notwithstanding obliged to apply their utmost indeavours to the fulfilling of it Though the difficulty of the question intangling and as it were maleficiating their understanding makes them imagine that it is maintained by that which indeed destroys it And therefore I cannot in the like manner excuse them who besides the predetermination of the will by God do hold that faith which onely justifieth to consist in believing that God predestinates to life in consideration of the obedience of Christ provided for the elect of God alone Because not requiring that voluntary conversion of the will of God for the condition oâ— the Covenant of Grace the revelation of the will of God aforesaid not implying any thing but the evidence of Gods word manifested by his spirit to that effâ—ct they disoblige themselves of imploying that freedome of the will which Christianity supposeth to perform that condition which Christianity requireth As if the losse of freedome from sin did infer the losse of freedome from necessity by vertue of originall concupiscence extending neverthelesse to the state of innocency In fine the free grace of God and the free-will of man belonging both to the foundation of Christianity there are two extremities to be argued in this question consisting in destroying the one out of a desire to preserve both which he that hath not in plaine termes destroys Christianity And therefore I blame not the determinations of the Councill of Orange that have secured us on the one hand against the merit of grace by works of nature But I find reason that we should be secured on the other hand against the determination of the will that introduces necessity to the overthrow of Christianity For it is possible for the understanding of him that desires to maintaine both grace and freewill to be so intricated with the difficulty of reconciling them both as to make the freedome of mans wil to depend upon the immediate act of Gods will determining it freely to act when it acteth out of pretense of maintaining the efficacy of Gods free grace wheras it is indeed no helpe of grace that inables not freely to doe what the Covenant of grace requireth I doe not therefore pardon our Presbyterians when they bring into their confession of faith which we must all be obliged to forsooth the determining of mans will by God having no waies secured us from the position of jâ—stifying faith to consist in beleiving that we are predestinate to life But I forwâ—rne their mis-led hearers that though they think themselves bound to pay them well for their
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
and ruled the whole Church and might as easily make his corruptions generall as Christ Christianity But if it were meerly their saying to make it a Tradition of the Apostles what shall we say of Pelagius For they must pardon me who think that the hatred of his Heresie brought the baptism of Infants into force More generall it might deservedly make it For by the condemning of his Heresie the danger of Infants going out of the world was conâ—eâ—â—ed But it was the Baptism of Infants being in force afore that made his opinion an Heresie as making the necessity of Baptism visible as supposed by all Christians and therefore the truth of Original sin Pelagius was not so very a fool as they imagine If all the knowledge that a man of his time could get by seeing all parts of the Church would have served for an exception to the authority of the baptism of Infants he might have wrangled with his adverse party about the exposition of those Scriptures which are alleadged in the point till this day and his opinion have found footing in the Church But because he could not sâ—op mens eyes so as not to see what they saw we may for wantonnesse betray the cause of God by letting the interpretation of the Scriptures loose to every mans fancy which God had appointed to be confined within the Tradition of his Apostles but they could not chuse but condemn that position which the visible practice of the Church proclaimed to be Heresie Thus farre then I proceed upon the Tradition of the Apostles to make the Baptism of Infants necessary in case of necessity that is of danger of death But I that condemn not the ancients for disputing that it ought not to be generall nor the Greek Church for reserving it till years of discretion supposing the means of it reasonably secured in that case am not like to attribute the necessity of baptizing all Infants which the present Laws of the Church do introduce to the tradition of the Apostles but to the original power of the Church founded upon the constitution thereof in determining the circumstances of those offices which being incumbent upon the Church are not determined by any law of either of his Apostles For though I take not upon me to say that there can no reason be given why this particular should not now be so determined as we see it is who do acknowledge great reasons to have been alleadged by the ancients to the contrary for their time yet I see so many ways for the misunderstanding and the neglect of Christianity to creep upon the Church that I cannot see sufficient reason why the Church should trust the conscience of particular Christians whom it concerned to see to the baptism of all Infants that might come into that case now that the world was come into the Church and that therefore the Church could not have the like presumption of the conscience of all that professed Christianity in the discharge of an office of that concernment to that which it might reasonably have while it was under persecution and men could not be thought to imbrace Christianity but for conscience sake And therefore as I do maintain it alwaies to have been within the lawfull power of the Church to make a generall Law as now it is so I must averre that there was just reason and ground for the exercise of that power in determining this point whither as in the East with some toleration of those whom they had confidence in for seeing to the baptizing of their Infants in danger of death or generally as in the West to see the occasion of mischiefe and scandall prevented by doing it presently after birth And therefore those that forsake the unity of the Church â—ather then be subject to a Law which it may lawfully make as I have showed if that which hath been resolved of the difference between Heresie and Schism be true cannot avoid being schismaticks As for the ground of that opinion which moves them to break up the seal of God marked upon those that are baptized unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity by baptizing them anew to the hope of salvation without the obligation of Christianity whether they are to be counted Hereticks therefore or not let who will dispute This I may justly inferre they take as sure a course to murther the souls of those whom they baptize again as of those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized There remains two questions which seem to make this resolution hard to believe If there be no salvation without Baptism no not for the Infants of Christians it is demanded what becomes of their souls and whither they go I must needs allow that those ancient and later Divines alledged by Cassander and our Hooker after him had reason to entertain a charitable hope of the happinesse of those who being prevented by the inevitable casualties of mans life of attaining the Sacrament of Baptism are accompanied out of the world by the prayers of Christian Parents commending them to God with the same affections wherewith they alwaies vowed them to God by bringing them to Christianity so soon as they should become capable to be instructed in it But if I will stand to the bounds of Gods revealed will I must also say that this hope is presumed without book that is without any Law of God to warrant the effect of it For if God promise the Kingdom of heaven to Infants that depart after Baptism as the reasons premised and the practice of the Church make evidence nothing hindreth the mercy of God to extend to those that depart without it where nothing hindreth the power of his grace to regenerate without the Sacrament those whom he hath not expressed that he will not regenerate But this shall not proceed from any obligation of his Covenant of Grace nor tend to make good the evidence thereof which the practice of the Church createth And therefore shall make onely a presumption of what may be and not of what is I find that Arminius had further a doubtful conceit that all Infants departing without Baptism are to be saved by the virtue of Gods second Covenant and the death of Christ upon which it is grounded God having extended both as farre as sinne by the first Adam extendeth But the publication of the second Covenant and the intent of Christs death upon which it is grounded being conditional as hath been showed I suppose it is not enough to intitle Infants to the benefit thereof that they never did any thing to refuse it Otherwise what cause is there why all the Gentiles that go out of the world without hearing of Christianity should not be saved by virtue of it notwithstanding all that they sinne against the Law of nature Because the New Covenant is to take effect where it is not refuted and sinnes against the Law of nature cannot be constrained as a refusall of the
and alwaies have maintained that which you see I dare not affirm but he dares namely that all Infants who dye unbaptized go into everlasting fire It is demanded in the second place what is that regeneration by the Holy Ghost and wherein it consists whereof Infants that are baptized can be thought capable For the wild conceits of those that imagine them to have faith in Christ which without actuall motion of the mind is not require miracles to be wrought of course by baptizing that the effect thereof may come to passe And if the state of Grace which the habituall grace of Gods spirit either supposeth or inferreth is not to be attained but by the resolution of imbracing the covenant of Grace as by all the premises it is not otherwise attended it will be every whit as hard to say what is that habituall Grace that is said to be poured into the souls of Infants that are baptized being nothing else but a facility in doing what the covenant of Grace requireth But if we conceive the regeneration of Infants that are baptized to consist in the habituall assistance of Gods spirit the effects whereof are to appear in making them able to perform that which their Christianity requires at their hands so soon as they shall understand themselves to be obliged by â—it we give reason enough of the effect of their Baptism whither they dye or live and yet become not liable to any inconvenience For supposing the assistance of Gods spirit assigned them by the promise of Baptism to take effect when their bodily instruments inable the soul to act as Christianity requireth if the soul by death come to be discharged of them can any thing be said why originall concupiscence which is the Law of the members should remain any more to impeach the subjection of all faculties to the law of Gods spirit Or will it be any thing strange that when they come to be taught Christianity the same spirit of God should be thought to â—way them to imbrace it of their own choice and not onely in compliance with the will of their Parents yet is this no more then the regeneration of Infants by water and the Holy Ghost importeth that the spirit of God should be habitually present to make those reasons which God hath given to convince the world that they ought to be Christians both discernable to the understanding and waying down the choice whereas those that are converted from being enemies to God that is to say at those yeâ—rs when no man can be converted to God that is not his enemy before though the spirit of God knock at their hearts without striving to cast out the strong man that is within doors and to make a dwelling for it selfe in the heart are possessed by a contrary principle till they yield Gods spirit that entertainment which God requireth If this habituall assistance of Gods spirit by the moral effect of Gods promise not by any natural change in the disposition of that minde which never used reaâ—on to make choice of it can be called habitual grace as for certain it is a grace of God in consideration of our Lord Christ and no lesse habitual then any quality which the soul of man or the faculties thereof can be indowed with I shall not need to quarel the decree of the Council of Vienna which hath determined the giâ—t of habitual grace to be the effect of Baptism in Infants Onely I exprâ—sse more distinctly and to the preventing of the inconveniences mentioned wherein it conâ—isteth But I shall inferre as a consequence of this resolution that we are not to look upon Christians that are baptized in their Infancy as thoâ—e who are all of them necessarily enimies to God before they â—e converted again to become true Christians For though that very age when they come first to years of discretion obliging them to act as Christians be liable to â—o many and so great temptations that few câ—n pass through it without falling away from the profession of Christians yet because it is not incredible that there are many cases in which the Ministry of education blessed by Gods providence as acted by his grace brings it to pass it is by no means to be supposed that all those who are baptized Infants are necessarily to passe through the state of Gods enemies And therefore that as many as come into that state do fall from the state of Gods grace into which they are baptized Which is none of the least demonstrations of that which hath been maintained in due place that the state of Gods grace is as well lost and forfeited as it is to be recovered again by Christians And upon this ground and to this purâ—ose it was that the ancient Church at such time as the solemnity of Baptizing became tied to Easter and Whitsuntide and the young were baptized with the old not absolutely Infants but according to the opinion of Gregory Nazianzene related afore at three or four years of age used to give them alâ—o the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized For the Eucharist being nothing but the confirming and seconding of the covenant of Baptism the reason why they were baptized inferred the giving of them the Eucharist Which reason being rendred by the supposed Dionysius in the end of his Book de Ecclesiasticâ Hierarchia where he tells us that litle ones received the Eucharist as soon as they were baptized as I do here that they might be alwaies from thence forwards in the state of Grace The Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ because the means to convey his Spirit may well be judged the means to secure and confirm that promise thereof which Baptism importeth Yet doth not this inferre that since it is become necessary for the Church to baptize all in the state of meere Infants it is not for the best to deferre the communion of the Eucharist till litle ones may know what they do though in my opinion it is deferred farre longer then it ought to be nothing but a disposition positively opposite to Christianity defeating the effect of it which may prevent the said disposition in innocents much lesse that this can be any just ground for division in the Church so that the division which shall be raised upon this ground necessarily renders those who are the cause of it Schismaticks In fine seeing it is excellently said by S. Gregory Nazianzene in sanctum Bapt. Orat. XLII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we are to think the force of Baptizing to consist in the Covenant of a second life and purer conversation with God And that the Eucharist is nothing else but the seconding of this Covenant where Baptism in that regard is necessary to salvation there the Eucharist though not necessary as the ancient Church never held it cannot be unlawful Whether expedient or not he that contents himselfe with the practice of the Church for Unities sake will prove the best Christian I
limited yet must not this limitation be such as shall abate any thing of the promise of the Gospel which the Sacraments bring with them to those who by a competent resolution for their Christianity are qualified for it Turn we to the Law and the Prophets and observe according to the premises that there was no expiation prescribed by the Law for the inward guilt of sinne but for outward uncleannesses or incapacities of conversing among the people of God and by consequence of injoying the benefit of the Land of promise together with some sinnes which the Law specifies but condemns not to any bodily or pecuniary punishment Wherefore seeing we read in the Law and the Prophets so many exhortations to repentance which if we suppose to come from God we cannot suppose to be void of a promise implyed tendring pardon and favour at Gods hands upon repentance it is necessary to acknowledg that inward repentance under the Law qualified for remission of sinnes Read the seaven Penitentiall Psâ—lms and tell me how men came then to be cleansed of their sinnes David affirming Psal LI. 18. Thou desirest no sacrifice else would I give it thee but thou delightest not in burnt-offerings but by that faith which moved them to seek reconcilement with God by repentance and by that conversion to righteousnesse which their faith supposed acceptable to God So the Prophets Ezek. XVIII 32. XXXIII 9-20 Esay I. 18. 1 King VIII 33. 2 Chron. VI. 24. besides infinite more For if we say that men were then bound to confesse their sinnes that they might be cleansed by the Synagogue he that confessed a capitall crime must incurre a capitall punishment and without death there was no way to cleanse him of it If we say he might be cleansed by sacrifice by the Synagogue without confessing the sin why not under the Gospel by means answerable that is by the Eucharist and the oblations out of which it is celebrated without confessing in particular to the Church I do not therefore here dispute what sins might be and what might not be purged by sacrifices not doubting by many passages of the Prophets and Ecclesiasticus that the righteous and spiritual men of that people under the Law did offer sacrifices for the expiation of those sinnes which there was no particular promise in the Law that God would pardon upon those sacrifices But first I suppose that though God allowed their conformity to his present Law in offering sacrifices that were not expresly required by it but customed by Gods people upon it yet he accepted them not for those sacrifices but for that repentance and conversion of heart from whence they came Thereupon then I argue in the second place that if without declaring the kind of sinne under the Law under the Gospel much more For seeing that there is no expiation for capital crimes without death by the Law he that should offer sacrifice for such a sinne declaring it must become liable to death And the same is the case in the second rank of offenses against the Law which it punisheth with scourging Those also belonging to that rank which the Law threatens with death by the hand of God which renders their life forfeit into Gods hands Because of the Rule which they have that if they come to be know to the Synagogue they are to be punished with scourging For who can imagine that these can be purged by the Law without undergoing the penalty of the Law And therefore if sacrifices were offered for them they were not confessed seeing that all estates in the Synagogue which was bound to punish them were also bound to bring them to punishment As for the Church it hath been already declared that the constitution thereof presupposeth in order of nature and reason the covenant of Grace that is to say the condition upon which the Gospel tendreth remission of sinnes So that as we have all the reason in the world to think that God hath founded the corporation of his Church to be the means of affecting or procuring that dispoâ—ition which qualifieth for the promises of the Gospel So if the same diâ—poâ—â—â—ion câ—n be procured without the ministery of the Church which suppoâ—â—th the knowledge of particulâ—r sinnes there can be no cause why God should injoyn that the effect whereof is to be had without it Now I suppose from the premiâ—es that those who live within the Church have sufficient helps of Gods Grace to â—â—able them to return from their sinnes by repentance As for thoâ—e helps which â—hâ—y may have by the ministery of the Church making known their â—â—nnes to it Though they may be of such virâ—ue as to make that more 〈◊〉 which is poâ—sible without them Yet when all is done that man câ—n do it exâ—â—edâ—th not the same kind of helys whiâ—h man outwardly may rendâ—râ—â—o Goâ—s inwâ—râ—â—râ—ce Which as it is more probâ—ble that Gods good providence should â—â—ke â—ffectuall then where the same outwâ—rd meanâ— are not imployed or where they are imployed in a lesse measure So is it possible that bâ—ing onâ—e â—â—ffiâ—â—â—nt they may become effectual by Gods grace though in a 〈◊〉 measure But I confesse there is nothing prevailes more with me to conclude this then that which the Scripture affords us to evidence that God hâ—â—h instituted and appointed the Ministery of his Church for the reconciling oâ— thoâ—e â—â—nnes which must or which may come to the knowledge of his Church For when God giveth first to S. Peter the Keyes of his Church Mat. XVIII 19. and afterwards to all his Disciples the power of binding and loosing sinnes Joh. XX. 19. it is evident that by this power they are able to do nothing to unbelievers but perâ—wade them by preâ—ching the Gospel to imbrace that courâ—â— by which it tendreth râ—mission of sinne untill having perswaded them to it they oblige them to enter into the Church by Baptism as that to which God hath liâ—ited that profession of Christianity which he requires to remission of sinne Thus is the power of the Keyes or of binding and loosing sinne first seen and exercised in baptizing understanding thereby not onely the ministring of the Sacrament but the bringing of a man to that disposition to which Baptism is due The same is still exercised towards those that are come into the Church by laying forth to them the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets of our Lord and his Apostles obliging them to return from sinne by Repentance So that it cannot justly be said that Preaching as we call it that is further instructing in the doctrine of Christianity those that by the preaching of the Gospell have been moved to imbrace it is a thing impertinent to the power of the Keyes not concerning the office of it Unlesse we think ministring the helps of sufficient grace imperâ—inent to effectuall grace which alwayes supposeth them Having already shewed that before conversion to Christianity the power of the Keyes is seen in ministring the same
guilty of those excesses which they are charged with by Epiphanius S. Jerome and others Of these particulars you may see in S. Augustine de Haeresibus and Sirmondus his Praedestinatus both of them Haeresi XXVI and LXXXVI But all the while the subject of this separation is the discipline of Penance received by the whole Church as from the Apostles the limitation of the practice thereof being the ground upon which the difference is stated And for the ground of this ground Whether it could then be pretended that the Keyes of the Church could do no more then cure the scandall of notorious sinne on the one side Or whether it could then be pretended on the other side that the Keyes of the Church import any Power to pardon sinne immediately not supposing that disposition which qualifieth for pardon visible to the Church and procured by those actions which the authority of the Church injoyneth All this I am content to referre to that common sense which is capable to understand these particulars I shall not need to say much of the Novatians at Rome and elsewhere the Donatists in Africk of the Meletians in Aegypt having said this of the Montanists all of them if we regard the subject of the separations which they made in severall parts of the Church being nothing else but branches of the same sect and forsaking the unity of the Church for their part of that cause which ingaged Montanus The Novatians because they would not indure that those who fell away from the Faith in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon demonstration of repentance The Meletians for the same cause in Aegypt under the persecution of Diocletiane The Donatists upon some appertenâ—nce of the same cause Onely they serve to evidence the discipline of Penance to have been as universall as the Church of Christ when no part of it is found free from debates about the terms liâ—iting the exercise of it They serve also to evidence the ground and the pretenâ—e of the Power of the Keyes in the discipline of Penance by the same reason which I alledged afore After these times when the customes of the Church which from the beginning was governed by un-written Law delivered by word of mouth of the Apostles but limited more and more by the Governours of several Churches began to be both reduced into writing and also more expresly determined by the Canons of severall Councils greater and lesse it were too vain to prove that by dicourse which of it selfe is as evident as it is evident that there are such Rules extant which in their time had the force of Law to those parts of the Church for which they were respectively made Onely I do observe the agreement that is found between the originall practice of the Church in this point and that order which I have showed you out of the Apostles writings evidencing that interpretation which I have given of them by that rule which common sense inforces that the meaning and intent of every Law is to be measured by the primitive practice of it For we see so much doubt made whether those three great crimes of Idolatry Murther and Adultery were to be reconciled by Penance that is by the visible and outward demonstration of inward repentance to the Church not onely by Montanus but partly by Novatianns that that great Church of Antiochia remained doubtfull a great while whether Cornelius or Novatians should be acknowledged the true Bishop of Rome We see the Eliberitane Canons which were unquestionably made divers years before the Council at Nicaea and therefore may be counted as ancient as any that the Church hath exclude some branches of those sinnes from reconciliation with the Church We see this vigor abated by the succeeding discipline of the Church It is indeed said in the Church of Rome at this time that the ground of the Heresie as without ground they call it of the Montanists and Novatians was this that acknowledging the Church to have power to forgive lesse sinnes they the Novatians denied it the Power to forgive Apostasy or Idolatry To which the Montanists added Murther and Adultery But I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 17-27 that within the Church also as well as among the Montanists and Novatians some of these sinnes were not admitted to communion no not at the point of death And that there never was any opinion in the ancient Church that the Church hath any Power to forgive sinne immediately but onely by the medicine of Penance which it injoyneth I referre my selfe to that which here followeth Now it is plain that neither those parts of the Church nor the Novatians did hold those sinnes desperate but exhorted them to Penance as their cure in Gods sight agreeing in not readmitting them whither for the maintenance of Discipline or for fear the Church warranting their pardon who might prove not qualified for it should become guilty of their sinnes according to S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man nor partake in other mens sinnes For S. John and the Apostle to the Hebrews had authorized the Church to make difficulty of it though S. Paul had readmitted a branch of one of them the incestuous person at Corinth whether for the unity of that Church then in danger to be divided upon that occasion or as reasonably satisfied of the truth of his repentance But when the zeal of Christianity decreased as the number of Christians increased within and persecution without withdrew so many that there was no means left to preserve the Body without abating this severity the number of Apostates in some persecutions being considerable to the number of Christians we need seek no other reason why the Montanists and Novatians should be Schismaticks not properly Hereticks then their separating from the Church rather then condescend to that which the Body of the Church found requisite to be granted Let us see what crimes they are which the Eliberitane Canons that is the Canons of the Council of Elvira in Spain exclude from the communion even in case of death As if a man at age after Baptism commit adultery in the Temple of an Idol cap. I. If an Idol Priest having been baptized shall sacrifice again II. If such a one after Penance shall have committed adultery III. If a Christian kill a man by Witchcraft wherein there is Idolatry VI. If a Christian commit adultery after Penance VII If a Woman leaving her Husband without cause mary another VIII If a Father or Mother sell a child into the Stews or a child it selfe XII If a professed Virgine shall live in uncleannesse XIII If a man marry his daughter to an Idol Priest XVII If a Clergy-man commit adultery XVIII If he who is admitted to communion upon adultery in danger of death shall commit adultery again XLVII If a Woman kill the childe which she hath conceived of adultery
LXIII If a Clergy-man knowing that his wife hath committed adultery dismiss her not LXV Sodomites LXXI If a woman forsaking an adulterer whom she had married afore marry another LXXII If a Christian be slain or confiscate upon the information of a Christian LXXIII If a man accuse a Clergy-man to wit criminally as a subject a subject before secular Powers of a crime which he cannot prove LXXV We see by these very particulars an abatement of that which Tertullian stood upon that no adultery should ever be restored to communion again For here Penance is allowed adultery the first time by the VII And she that leaves her Husband and maryes another is allowed the communion in danger of death As also after her first Husband is dead by the IX And so are Virgines that turn Whores if afterwards they repent and abstain before death by the XIII So for murther a Christian Woman that kills her maid is admitted to Penance by the V. And a Catechumena that is a woman professing Christianity before Baptism that kills the childe conceived of adultery by the LXVIII So in Idolatry Those who onely wear such a Crown as those that sacrificed did wear but sacrifice not nor are at the charge of sacrificing by the LV. And truly that VII Canon which allowes Penance upon adultery onely the first time but refuses the communion of the second time even in danger of death is manifestly more severe then that Rule which divers of the Fathers Origen in Levit. XXV Hom. XV. S. Ambrose de Paenit II. 10. 11. S. Augustine Epist LIII LIV. Hanil L. do mention as in force and use at their time to wit that Penance cannot be done the second time For though a man be not readmitted to communion by Penance upon falling into the same or a more grievous crime the second time yet may be allowed the communion in danger of death Just as S. Ambrose ad Virginâ—â— Lapsam cap. VIII censures her to do Penance till death Innocent I. Pope Epist II. expresly affirms that this was done in consideration of the times because if men were lightly admitted after having fallen in persecution who would hazard life for the profession of his faith But that afterwards either the Church must be Novatians or grant Penance in danger of death And truly the breach which the Novatians made must needs oblige the Church to readmit unto communion in danger of death But if the Church were obliged to be strict when there was fear of persecution least all should fall away then was it obliged to abate when many were fallen away that the Body thereof might be recovered and restored And the words of Innocent that follow are sufficient to show how much the Church then presumed upon that Penance that Absolution that communion which a man was admitted to upon confession of sinne in danger of death For he saith Tribuetur ergo cum Poenitentiâ extrema Communio The last Communion therefore shall be allowed with Penaâ—ce Now it is evident by the Canons which Gratiane hath compiled XXVI Quaest VI. VII VIII Quaest VII cap I. that when a man was admitted to Penance upon confession in danger of death the communion was given him provisionally as well to obtain the grace of God to strengthen him in that exigent as for the quiet of his conscience but neverthelesse he stood bound over to perform the Penance which was or should be injoyned in case he recovered And therefore when Pope Caelestine I Epist I. invayes against those who refused Absolution and the communion in danger of death and Leo I. Pope Epist LIX orders that they be reconciled by giving them the Communion It is to be supposed that they understand this Penance to be injoyned in that case because the custome of the Church required it And this serves to void the doubt that may be made what the Keyes of the Church can have to do in the remitting of sinnes as soon as they are confessed which serve to loose sinne no further then they serve to procure and to create that disposition which qualifies for forgivenesse You saw afore in the second Book what difficulty the ancient Church made in warranting the salvation of those that repented upon their Death bed though they proceeded to submit themselves and their sinnes to the Keyes of the Church for their absolution and the communion of the Eucharist at their departure And though Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles cap. LXXX say freely that he is a Novation and not a Christian that presumes not faithfully of Gods mercifull purpose to save that which was lost even in him that departs upon confessing his sinne yet still this is but a presumption of what may be not a warrant of what is which the power of the Keyes regularly used promises Otherwise what would Gennadius say to the great Councill of Arles under Constantine which denies absolution in that case Can. I. as you see the Eliberitane Canons do True it is which S. Cyprian saith Nunquam sera est poenitentia si sit vera Repentance is never late if it be true But who will maintain that to be true which the terrour of death and remorse of conscience may rack out of him in whom the love of God and goodnesse hath not formed that resolution of maintaining his professed Christianity which makes God the end of all his actions when as all that is done in such a case by common experience may be imputed to a true grounded desire of avoiding punishment for his own sake with a superficiall desire of doing well for Gods sake Though on the other side it may be presumed that such a one is not first moved with dislike of his sinne when first he submits it to the Keyes of the Church but hath first done many such acts of sincere contrition as his own judgement directed him to for the gaining of Gods grace And at length to give himselfe further satisfaction resolves to humble himselfe not onely to the declaring of his own shame but to the undergoing of that Penance upon performance whereof the Rules of the Church also warrant his forgivenesse Between these contrary presumptions the primitive severity of the Church it appears refused absolution and the communion even in danger of death to some of the most grievous sins Which afterwards was thought fit to be abated Not proclaiming dispair to any sinner but to oblige him not lightly to presume upon pardon of that sinne which the Church could never presume that a man can repent him of enough For on the other side it appears what inconvenience the granting of reconcilement to all at the point of death may produce if the intent of the Church in binding over to Penance him that escapes be not understood Namely to give men cause to presume of pardon by the Church when the Keyes thereof cannot have their operation in producing the disposition that is requisite And thus the primitive practice of the Church
we find no other motive for that severity but never see any of the Church except that they concern not that purpose but well and good that they serve not to prove it In like maner you have seen S. Paul witnesse the order then in the Church to mourn for those that were excluded the communion of the Church You have seen S. John and S. James after our Saviour signifie that the means of procuring remission of sin by the Church is to be expected from the prayers of the Church You may see on the other side the primitive Church make great demonstration of sorrow at the discovery of those sinnes for which some body is shut out of the Church or reduced to Penance As you may see by the authorities alledged in Grotius upon 1 Cor. V. 2. and by Epiphanius his Exposition of 2. Cor. XII 21. Haer. LIX especially by that eminent example of Natalis in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 28. And in the solemn service of the Church before the celebration of the Eucharist from the beginning you have seen a Prayer appointed to be made for those that were under Penance as well as for those that were not baptized and those that were vexed with evill Spirits that so they might be dimissed before the Eucharist to which they were not to be admitted I say therefore they who see this if they will see what they do see have evidence what the Apostles instituted in the Church as also upon what ground and to what purpose by what the Church immediately after them did practice A third thing there is which visibly derives not onely these Ordinances but the true intent and meaning of them from the institution of the Apostles and that is the indulgence which S. Paul useth in abating the Penance of that incestuous person whom I spoke of at Corinth Indulgence in Ammianus signifies the discharging of taxes imposed upon the Provinces of the Romane Empire by an act of Grace of the Emperours upon remonstrance of reasons wherefore this or that Province might deserve to be eased What can be more like this then the abatement of that hardship whereby those that were prescribed Penance were to demonstrate their inward repentance to the Church S. Paul we see upon representation of the submission of the Church and the guilty person both to the censure which he had ordered and of the real demonstration of sorrow made on his part and the intercession of the Church for his reconcilement thus condescends To whom you grant any thing I also grant it For if I have granted any thing it is for your sakes that I have granted it to him whom I have granted it in the person of Christ that Satan may have no advantage over us For we are not ignorant of his devices 2 Cor. II. 10. 11. I showed you before two reasons which S. Paul may be thought to point at by these words For he acknowledgeth by the premises â—â—ery considerable demonstration of conversion in the penitent sufficient to argue that S. Paul thought him really qualified for remission of sinne But in regard he declares here that it is for the Churches sake that he condesceâ—â—eth to prevent the advantage that Satan might have against them he intimaâ—â—â— a jealousie of some mutiny in the Church against his authority in case he condescended not For though he grant absolution in this regard yet he may well say he granteth it in the person of Christ though we suppose the party not really qualified for it supposing that he doth it to preserve the Unity of the Church chiefly concerning the common good of Christs flock For what S. Paul does by virtue of the office committed to him by Christ that he may well say he doth in the person of Christ as tending to the upright discharge of his office By the former of these reasons we evidently see the intent and effect of the Keyes of the Church in purging of sinne by the discipline of Penance For if indulgence be granted in consideration of evidence that appears to ground a presumption that the party is qualified for remission of sins in the judgement of the Church then is all the discipline of Penance to no other purpose but to oblige sinners to take that course whereby they may appear to the Church qualified for remission of sinne But that which S. Paul here doth is the very same that the primitive Church alwaies did from the beginning For whoso showed such zeal in taking revenge upon himself for his transgressions that the Church might be satisfied that God remained satisfied of his repentance to him the severity of this discipline was so fully released that those strict Canons that injoyned so many years Penance for divers great sinnes may seem to have been but threatnings inviting to show that zeal in conversion from sinne that the Church might have cause to be satisfied of their inward repentance And as often as there was fear of schism in any Church the practice of the primitive Church witnesseth how ready they were to receive those that would return abating the hardship of Penance The reason being this that what the Church condescended to for the avoiding of a greater mischief to the body thereof which is Schism in that she could not be understood to warrant forgivenesse of sins to those whom she received further then that disposition of mind which the parties themselves know that they returned with might warrant it For in as much as it was evident that the Church waved the rule by which they used to proceed for unities sake it remained also evident that the charge of making good that disposition which qualifieth before God for the communion of the Church devolves upon the conscience of them that impose the necessity of waving such wholesome rules upon the Church whatsoever the form were in which they were reconciled Let us now see whether the primitive practice of the Church will justifie the voluntary confession of secret sinnes to the Church as the means to obtain the pardon of them at Gods hands Tertullian in his Book de Poenitentiâ is very earnest in perswading not those that were fallen into notorious sinnes for what need he perswade them to undergo Penance who if they would continue Christians that is if they would injoy the communion of the Church could not avoid it but as it appears by his words those that could not be constrained to have recourse to that Penance which the Church required for the purging of their sinnes or for assurance that they were purged For when he pronounceth that sins of the will which no man but the party is guilty to are to be purged by this Penance as he doth in the third and fourth Chapters of that Book shall we imagine that he undertakes of his own head to bring in a thing that was not wont to be done in the Church Then might he have been rejected as well as his Master Montanus when he went
the Gospel requires which therefore may be obtained without the Ministery of the Church For if it be said that these persons would willingly undergo Penance upon condition of being restored to the Communion of the Church upon supposition that by the Ministery thereof they are restored to Gods grace and that therefore the desire of reconciliation by the Church supplies it as the desire of Baptism is accepted when it cannot be had If this be said I will allow that he who refuses the Ministery of the Church tendring him a reasonable presumption of attaining reconcilement with God by the means of it according to the just Laws of Christianity can have no cause to promise himselfe pardon without it In the mean time it is not the desire of reconcilement by the Church that qualifies him for remission of sinne but onely takes away the barre that hinders Gods grace to work that disposition in him which qualifies for it For if it be a part of Christianity to be a member of the Catholick Church then are not they capable of the promises made to Christians that will not seek them by the Ministery of the Church when and how farre and according as their Christianity shall oblige them to seek them To the same purpose I alledge also the second reason of S. Pauls indulgence and the effects of it in the practice of the primitive Church To wit the admitting of those that had committed Idolatry in time of persecution or who were otherwise born out in their sinnes by faction in the Church to communicate with the Church when in such cases there could be no presumption of sufficient disposition in the parties for forgivenesse from God but onely to avoid a breach in the Church of all things most prejudiciall to the generall good of the Body For can there be any appearance that the Church in such cases could be satisfied of the true and sufficient conversion of those that are admitted upon such terms when it is manifest that they are not admitted of choice but to avoid a further inconvenience Wherefore seeing the Church could not justifie the doing of it if there were not possibility of their being qualified for the Communon of the Church it follows that this possiblity consists in that the means of grace being sufficient for all within the Church may be effectual without the ministery thereof provided it be within the unity of it Here I must alledge the custome even of the primitive Church imposing no Penance upon Clergy-men â— that weae degraded for those crimes for which Laymen were reduced to Penance I remember the first Book de Synedris alledges this for an objection against the necessity of excommunication seeing it was not necessary for the Clergy Not considering that excommunication is abated by Penarice as Penance is abated by degradation in the Clergy But casting a foul aspersion upon the whole Church for imposing Penance upon the people when as nothing required it if the Clergy needed it not And this upon a mistake whether in point of fact or in point of right For it is not true that the Clergy were not subject to Penance especially in the first times of Christianity either when the crime was of a deeper nature then such as ordinary Laymen did Pehance for Or when a Clergy-man having been censured to communicate among the People which was degradation at that time relapsed Though afterwards they were remitted to do their Penance in private not bringing them before the Congregation for the prayers thereof with imposition of hands Neither is the reason which the ancient Canons give to be neglected in point of right For the losse of their rank in the Church being to them a rebuke whereof Lay Christians are not capable it is necessary that a difference should be made between them and the people Especially the interest of the Church requiring it in regard of another rule that no man that had done Penance should ever be admitted to the Clergy because of the common Christianity imbased in them who have done Penance which in those who are promoted to the Clergy is required of the best For those who for their qualities might best serve the Church if they had done Penance were ever after unserviceable iâ— not might be restored Whereby it appeateth that the Church presumed of them who knew their duty better then ordinary Christians that the loss of their rank would be sufficient to reduce them to true repentance without further constraint from the Church As afterwards they were trusted to do their Penance in private But this is full evidence that the Church did not think all sin incurable without the Keys of the Church For then the Church could not have referred the applying of the means of pardon which they procure to any presumption of any mans good conscience The like appears in the reconciling of Hereticks and Schismaticks to the unity of the Church by sholes that is by whole Churches at once upon whom as it is impossible to imagine that the discipline of Penance should passe so is it known upon evidence of Historicall truth that those who were not to be baptized again as some Heresies were by the Canons in force were admitted onely with Imposition of hands that is with the blessing of the Church acknowledging thenceforth to pray for them as Christians not as those for whom she prayes that they may become Christians Which not supposing possibility of pardon for them not undergoing the discipline of the Church could not have been granted I avow it to be truly said in this case that the Baptism received among Hereticks revives and comes to effect by this blessing of the Church For seeing that the onely necessary barre to the effect of it was the denying of that point of Christianity which distinguishes every Heresie from the Catholick Church or the destroying of the unity of the Church speaking of Schismaticks those that so return professing thenceforth the whole faith and maintaining the communion of the Church cannot be said to want any thing necessary to qualifie them for the promises of Christianity Seeing then this possibility is not grounded upon the Ministery of the Church which passes not upon them but upon the common profession of Christians made by them when they were baptized and the taking away of that barre which made it ineffectuall afore by returning to the unity of the Church though without any ministration of Penance neither can it be said that the disposition qualifying for remission of sinne is not to be attained in the Church without the Ministery of the Church by the discipline of Penance nor that it is attained by the desire of it but onely that the barre is removed by submitting to it A visible instance hereof I will propose in the reconciling of England to the Church of Rome in Q. Maries days an act of the highest nature that the power of the Keys could do And yet it is notorious that
pardon and absolution and the blessing of the Church was given them who could not be induced to restore the Church goods seized by Hen. the eighth A thing excluding all pretence foâ— any presumption of true conversion in them whom it concerned and yet â—ound necessary for the restoring of the Body in unity But so that the said necessity made it to be evidently for the general good even upon these terms For maintaining those who could not be induced to do right in the point in the unity of the Church there was no reason why the Church should be thought to warrant that absolution as to God which it granteth as to the Church Because it appears that it is granted to avoid a greater mischief Leaving them who finde themselves concerned by the ministery of the Church the communion whereof they regain to be reduced to that course which may assure their absolution as to God But I use this instance onely ad hominem that my reason may be understood not intending to justifie the proceeding in point of right as I do undertake to justifie the Council of Nicaea in admitting the Meletians who were guilty of the crime of Schism not onely without satisfaction of their repentance but all in their ranks onely suspending the exercise of their offices till those that were presently possessed should depart Or as I might undertake to justifie Pope Melchiades in offering to do the like for the Denatists for which he is commended by S. Austine Epist XLVII which the Church supposing Schism to be a mortall sinne that is of that number which the now Church of Rome injoyns Penance could not do upon other terms then I have said and if it had thought no sinne reconcileable without the Church could by no means have done The same is to be said of those that are excommunicated and cast out of the Church without cause For as no man ever doubted that to be a case which comes to pass so can no Christianity allow that a man should be excluded the Kingdom of God for another mans fault He therefore that hath the knowledge in Christianity and the resolution for it to keep himself to the duty of a Christian in such a case though being destitute of all advantage by the communion of the Church it is difficult to do he I say shall obtain pardon of sinne without help of the Church and not by desiring the Ministery thereof otherwise then as not desiring of communion with the Church remains a barre to the work of Gods grace In fine consider the primititive order of the Church and that of the Church of Rome at this day by the law of secret confession once a year For he that considers how much businesse the reconciling of a Penitent made the Church in those days will never imagine that it could be presumed that all sins which now come under secret confession should then be expiated by the Keys of the Church I have given you the testimony of Origen directing to make choice of some of the Presbyters of the Church to make acquainted with secret sinne that if he should require Penance to be done in the face of the Congregation his prescription might be followed This inforces us to understand the other part of the alternative that if he required no such thing it should be enough to take that course of humiliation and mortification which he should prescribe in private And truly one of the Canons of the Council at Elvira XXXII orders Penance to be injoyned by a Priest not by the Bishop Which I understand to be in private and not in publick Allowing it very probable that this is not properly counted Penance but onely suspension from the Eucharist injoyned by some of those Canons in some case XXI L. LXXVII and is opposed to Penance Can. XIV So that probably one of the Presbyters might injoyn it in secret by these Canons But otherwise seeing that all this while there was no Penance but by order of the Bishop or as in some of S. Cyprians Epistles of the Bishop and Presbyters sometimes when the case was difficult as in Firmilianus quoted afore by order of a Synod what appearance is there in common reason that all sinnes that now come under secret confession could then come under the Keyes of the Church In the order which Nectarius abolished any man may discern there was nothing but a course of abridging publick businesse of the Church by referring Penitents to one Priest set aside to that purpose When that course was abrogated still they had recourse to the Bishop and Presbyters but it is manifest so many could not be dispatched as afore And now it is manfest that to require of every man to confesse all the sinnes that ever he did since he confessed last would be an unsufferable torture to mens consciences And therefore it is onely required that they confess those which they have in remembrance I ask then how those which they have not in remembrance come pardoned If by inward repentance restoring the disposition of a Christian it is that which I seek If by being willing to confesse them if I had them in remembrance he that is not qualified for remission of sinnes as Christianity requireth is not qualified becauâ—e he would have been so qualified had it not been his own fault I adde further that it is at this day resolved by Casuists of very good note that a Penitent is bound in conscience to impose upon himself further Penance then that which his Confessor injoyneth in case he be satisfied in conscience that he hath not imposed that which is sufficient For in the case of clave errante it is manifest that there is no remission by the Keyes and yet remission is to be had by the Gospel antecedent to the Church If then a mans own Christianity may supply that means of forgivenesse which the Keys of the Church fail of procuring it is manifest that the use of them is not absolutely necessary for every particular Christian though absolutely necessary for the whole Body of the Church Add hereunto the restimonies of Ecclesiasticall Writers by which it appears that as they maintained the discipline of Penance which I also would maintain so farre as truth will allow so they supposed remission of sins attainâ—ble without it The exhortations of Tertullian and S. Ambrose to Ecclesiastcal Penance will no way inferr that it was then actually a Law in force that all sins that void the grace of Baptism should be made known to the Church for the obtaining of pardon by the Keyes of it For how ill doth iâ— become any Law to begge obedience by alledging reasons which must inforce it if they be good were there no Law But on the other side what express testimonies what necessary consequences there are to inferr that there was no such Law in the primitive Church I remit the Reader to the Collections of the Aâ—â—hbishop of Spalato 5. VII 10-20 and
to the answer to the Jesuits challenge in Ireland CHAP. IX Penance is not required to redeem tho debt of temporall punishment when the sinne is pardoned What assurance of forgivenesse the law of auricular Confession as it is used in the Church of Rome procureth Of injoyning Penance after absolution performed Setting aside abuses the Law is agreeable to Gods Of the order taken by the Church of England ANd now it is time to inferre from the premises the judgement that we are to make of the law of secret confession and Penance in the Church of Rome premising in the first place that which is evident supposing the premises that the works of Penance which they call Satisfactions because they will have them to make satisfaction for the debt of temporall punishment remaining when the guilt and stain of sinne is abolished were never required by the Church but according to the word of God to render the conversion of the Penitent so sincere and resolute as may qualifie him for pardon and Gods grace It is not necessary for this purpose that I undertake here to show that God pardoning sinne cannot or ever doth reserve a debt of temporall punishment to be inflicted in consideration of it It is manifest to any man that is neither acted by passion nor by faction that the death which God inflicted on Davids child gotten in adultery and the other judgements which the Prophet pronounces against him 1 Sam. XII 10-11 were punishments inflicted in consideration of those sinnes which the nature and kind of them answers expresly for murther that the sword shall not depart from his house for adultery that his wives should be defiled before the Sun Therefore when the Prophet sayes to him The Lord hath set aside thine iniquity thou shalt not die It will be requisite to take notice that though his sinne is pardoned speaking absolutely because his life his spared which was forfeit by Gods Law though into no mans hands but Gods yet this pardon extended not to extinguish the sentence pronounced nor yet that which he proceedeth further to pronounce concerning the childs death Whither you will say that in such a case sinne is remitted because absolutely the man is restored to Gods grace or not remitted because as to the punishments allotted he suffers by Gods vindicative justice is a controversie about words which I will not spend words to determine This cannot be denied that neither Gods originall justice nor any covenant of his with man hinders him so to proceed But what is this to the intent of Penance imposed by the Church which I have evidenced both by the Scriptures and the originall practice of the whole Church to have pretended the abolishing of the guilt and stain of sinne Indeed it is not to be denied that there is something more in that Penance which the Church imposeth For he that exacts the same revenge upon himself at his own discretion and conscience which the Church by the Canons thereof should exact pretends onelp to satisfie his own discretion and conscience that God is satisfied with his repentance And there lies the danger of satisfying a mans self with a palliative cure instead of a sound one whereas he that does it upon the sentence of the Church pretends to satisfie the Church that God is satisfied with it and to assure himself of his cure But when this satisfaction to the Church presupposes satisfaction ro God at least a presumption thereof whither onely legall or also reasonable well may I without this exception make this the pretense of Ecclesiasticall Penance Neither had there been any cause to question the doctrine and practice of the Catholick Church concerning the satisfaction of Penance had not the Church of Rome suffered it to be taught for I should do them wrong to say that they have injoyned it to be taught that it tendeth to recompense the debt of temporal punishment remaining when the sinne is remitted For though under the Gospel also God may decree temporal punishment upon that sin which afterwards comes to be remitted repentance yet he who is restored to the state of Gods grace to whom all things cooperate to good as S. Paul saith Rom. VIII 28. though he suffer temporall punishment for his sin by Gods justice yet by Gods grace to which he is restored it is converted into the means of salvation and of bringing to pass Gods everlasting purpose of it Before I go further I must call you to mind that which I said of the change of attrition into contrition how it may be allowed by the covenant of Grace and how it intimateth an abusive opinion that the change which qualifieth a man for the promises which the Gospel tendreth taketh effect in consideration of the intrinsecall worth of it and not onely of Gods promise which you have seen to be false This dispute was a long time canvased in the Schools without any reference to the remission of sinne by the Keyes of the Church But the difficulty being started that Confession not made in charity that is out of the love of God above all things may satisfie the positive precept but cannot avail to the remission of sin Some sought a salve for this sore in the form of Absolution which then proceeded partly as a Prayer partly as a definitive sentence For they thought the Prayer obtained that Grace which might be a due ground for the sentence But when the opinion prevailed that the form ought to be indicative it remained to say how Confession and Absolution should render him contrite that comes onely attrite Thomas Aquinas to say how the Keys of the Church may be understood to attain the production of Grace imagined the immediate effect of them to be a certain ornament of the soul fitting it for Grace by virtue whereof that Grace which a man gets not by Penance when he is not contrite quickens in him when he becomes contrite As he that is baptized without that resolution which obtaineth the promises becomes estated in them when it is rectified And this opinion had vogue among his followers till the last age afore this when finding it more proper to raise then to resolve questions it was laid aside by Cardinall Caâ—etane first then by the rest of his followers In the mean time the dispute of the change of attrition into contrition remained most maintaining contrition to be necessary before absolution till the Council of Trent upon the decree whereof Sess XIV cap. VI. Melchior Canus first maintained sorrow conceived upon meet fear of punishment with the Keys to qualifie for pardon of sinne Whose opinion is now grown so ordinary that those who hardly satisfie themselves in giving warning of the harm their own doctrine may do go down the stream notwithstanding in yielding to an opinion that hath so great vogue I do not intend hereby to say that that the Council of Trent hath decreed this opinion and obliged all to maintain it The terms which
in the one in the other to be grounded upon a sentence of absolution that supposes it not And yet it will not be acknowledged that there is any decay of discipline any fault any defect in the Laws and Customes for what is Law but Custome what rule is there for mens actions that custome inforceth not of the Church that cause so much difference in the proceedings of it Howsoever the custome of redeeming Penance came into the Church and how prejudiciall soever the voyage of the H. Land or the like may have been to the discipline of it the application of temporall good to some spirituall end was a poor cloke for such a corruption in comparison of that zeal to Christianity which fighting for Christians against Infidels pretendeth This is the most material occasion that I find alledged for that change which the discipline of the Church hath suffered in granting absolution before Penance To wit the indulgences granted them that undertook to fight for Christians against infidels And this is enough to render the abuse and the decay of discipline by the means thereof visible But when Indulgences are proposed for a small summe of Money pre-supposing indeed such qualifications as need not the Indulgences if rightly understood and had but as not being rightly understood and had render the Indulgences dangerous delusions whither poor people will not rather be induced by our common corruption to imbrace that sense which makes the pardon of their sinnes void as so had then that which makes them to be deceived of their money to no effect by the Church I leave to the conscience of discreet Christians to judge And whither this be not horribly to abuse the Keyes of the Church I leave to God and man to judge In the mean time I onely remind you of that difficulty which the ancient Church made in believing and admitting that those were saved who being admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in danger of death died before they could accomplish that Penance upon undertaking whereof they were admitted to it For is not the case of him that steddily purposeth to perform that Penance which the Church imposeth according to Rule if he survive much more hopeful for salvation dying afore then his that thinks his sinne purged by the sentence of absolution without undertaking or performing any Penance at all in order to the pardon of it And here I summon the Consciences of the Doctors of the Church of Rome Suppose a man take revenge upon himselfe according to a good conscience that is proportionably to the weight of his sinne according to the Rules that were in force in more uncorrupt times of the Church another according to the doctrine that is current in the Church of Rome professing himselfe truly sorry for his sinne and receiving absolution presumes of pardon for it intending to satisfie for temporall punishment that remains as he is directed whether of these is upon the better ground whether of them pretends to pardon upon the better title supposing the premises concerning the Covenant of Grace He who satisfying his conscience upon the original word of the Gospel and the primitive practice of the Church that he hath appeased the wrath of God by taking revenge upon himselfe and is thereby returned to his first resolution for Christianity Or he who being touched with sorrow for his sinne and submitting the same to the Keys of the Church hath done what the current practice thereof requires him to do for redeeming the temporall punishment of iâ— For it is evident in the doctrine of the Apostles and the primitive practice of the Church that the satisfaction of Penance appeaseth the wrath of God upon this ground because it evidenceth that resolution for Christianity to be restored which a man otherwise ought not to presume of in himselfe when he knows in himselfe that it hath been interrupted much lesse ought the Church to presume of it in him when the interruption thereof hath been visible to the Church He then who having conceived sorrow for his â—â—nne submits himselfe to the Keyes of the Church to be restored to Gods grace by the ministery thereof and does as he is injoyned to do if the Church and the person whom the Church trusts for him do their duty that is supposing the Laws of the Church to be good and sufficient and well and sufficiently exercised hath a good and sufficient presumption that he is restored But he who proceedeth upon the common faith of the Gospel and the primitive practice of the Church whereby all that is doubtful in Christianity must be resolved attaineth that assurance of his restoring to the state of salvation which I have showed is attainable But not supposing the Laws of the Church to be either sufficient or sufficiently executed that presumption of pardon which can be built upon it is neither good nor sufficient but rather peremtory to salvation by palliating the crime which it ought to cure Now for the ground which the Church of Rome gives a reasonable man to presume hereof it is not to be denied or dissembled that the Council of Trent Sess XIV cap. VIII declareth that it is the duty of all Confessors to injoyn wholsome and competent Penance upon all Penitents and that by virtue of S. Pauls charge 1 Tim. V. 22. upon which the Power of the Church in imposing Penance is truly grounded seeing the blessing of the Church signifieth by imposition of hands is as much granted in Penance as in ordaining least they become partakers of other mens sinnes declaring withall the intent which they ought to aim at in imposing them But we know also and see thereby that there is no effectuall course taken to see that this be done whither it be possible to take a course that may be effectuall to be done or not And we know besides how great vogue that opinion hath which maketh attrition with the Keyes of the Church that is the shame of declaring a mans sinne to his Confessor a sufficient disposition to forgivenesse And therefore it is justly to be questioned whither the Law of secret confession with these abusive opinions and scandalous practises under which it is now exercised in the Church of Rome is for the best or not That is to say whether the greatest part of them who submit to it do not unduly perswade themselves that their sinnes are cured by it when indeed they are not For considering the ground of all superstition and counterfeit religion to be this that man sensible of the wrath of God due to his sinne on the other side yet favourable to that concupiscence which sinne pleaseth on the otherâ—side desireth a colour to perswade himself that he is reconciled to God by such means as indeed serves not the turn I know not whether perswasion is the more catching supposing the present division between the Reformation and the Church of Rome that a man is justified by believing that he is
his presence in the Church at the beginning of Christianity Afterwards it was provided that the oyl should be consecrated by the Bishop with the Prayers of the Church in virtue whereof whither applyed by the Priests or by private Christians there might be hope that it might operate S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XXXII Eth. comparing the entertaining of the Apostles at home there mentioned with obeying their successors in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For both this Table is farre more precious and pleasant then that and this light which all know who anointing themselves with oyl seasonably and with faith have avoided diseases S. Austine de Civ XXII 8. Hipponensem quandam virginem scio cum se oleo perunxisset cui pro illa orans Presbyter lacrymas suas instillaverat mox à daemonio fuisse sanatam I know a certain maid of Hippo hauing anointed her selfe with oyl in which the Priest praying for her had dropt his tears was straight cured of a Devil Here is nothing but the cure of the body by consecrated oyl only that the Priest who gave it the maid prayed for her when he gave her it Therefore when Hilarion cured the Son in law and daughter of Constantia with oyl we are to understand the consecrated oyl with which the hinds and shepheards of Aegypt cured themselves of the bitings of Serpents by his direction Hieron in Hilarione Nor did Malachias in S. Bernard pretend any more thereby then bodily cure Therefore I do not marvail that Innocent I. should speak of unction without Penance who seems expresly to grant that sick persons should anoint themselves with that oyl which the Church should send them for that purpose To wit upon supposition that they need not the Keyes of the Church for the cure of their sinnes For Frier Thomas of Walden de Sacram. Tomo II. cap. penult understandeth him as indeed his words impart if you offer them no violence and the practice of the practice of Egypt who are said to have sent it to the sick and of the Greek Church in giving it to those that are well seems to imply to wit that as when the oblations of those who cannot be present at Church are received they are partakers â—of the benefit of those prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with because they are thereby acknowledged to belong to the communion of the Church So the sending of that unction which they apply to themselves importeth the blessing of the Church to go along with their Prayers which it is used with Thus much for certain when the Greeks contend that this unction belongs also to those that are well as the complement of their Penance arguing from the act of the Apostles who anointed those to whom they preached repentance and allowing it to the sick as that which for the present may be applyed unto them when as the exigent of their case will not allow them to perform Penance as you may see by Arcudius V. 4. they do clearly enough express the reason which I give CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimonial causes Mariage of one with one insolubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church IN the next place we are to consider what Interess the Church hath in the Mariages of Christians And that without granting Mariage to be one of the Sacraments of the Church or any thing implying what a Sacrament is and by consequence how many there are But yet supposing for disputations sake that it were a Sacrament that is not supposing the contrary but demanding nothing but that which must be granted whither it be so or not that our discourse may proceed Two things I suppose the one as proved in due place That the Church is by Gods Law a society which all Christians are bound to have communion with And that God hath given a peculiar Law concerning the Mariage of one with one and that indissoluble to all Christians For upon supposition hereof all the interest of the Church in Matrimoniall causes standeth Which is therefore now to be proved thence inforcing that whatsoever grows questionable among Christians concerning Mariage upon the account of that Law which is proper to Christianity belongs to the Church to determine For it is not my purpose to say that Christian States have nothing to do in Matrimoniall causes But that the Interess of the State and of the Church though not distinguishable by the persons when the fame persons belong to both are to be disâ—inguished by the causes and grounds and considerations upon which they arise and stand So that what comes from a reason concerning civill society belong to the State what from the Law which Christians onely acknowledge to the Church to limite and determine If then any difference arise among Christians concerning Mariage that supposeth not some provision brought in by the Gospel I will not undertake that the determination of it belongs to the Church by Gods Law On the contrary therefore that which becomes questionable upon that account I challenge to belong to the Church to determine that is to those that have right to determine on behalfe of the Church For I appeal to the common sense and experience of the world to evidence this That when any Law is given to any society or body founded upon reasons which afore the founding of it were not in force there will of necessity fall out new Cases in which it will be questionable whether the reason of the Law is to take place or not And let the Christian world be witnesse whether it be not requisite to acknowledge that if Christianity come from God then God hath provided a course to secure Christians in conscience that their Mariages are not against the will of God Therefore according to Aristoles reason the law which God hath given Christians concerning Mariage being generall and the cases which mens particular occasions produce being infinite and so not determined by the Law it followeth that they are referred by God to the determination of that society that is of those that act in behalfe of it with right to conclude it which God hath founded upon the acknowledgement of those Lawes whereof this is one In the first place then I am not afraid to undertake that the Law of the Mariages of Christians that they be of one with one and indissoluble is given by our Lord to his Church and maintained by it For I am confident to make evidence out of that which is received by all Christians together with the premises that it could neither have come into the world but by Christianity nor have been maintained so inviolable as it hath been by the Canons of the Church I say then that it is impossible for any reasonable man to imagine that so difficult a Law as for all men to be tied
to study the reconciling of carnality vvith Christianity Supposing the consent of a body vvhereof they thought themselves to be members it is no marvail that there would not Not supposing that it must needs appear utterly unreasonable As for the insolubility of mariage by divorce I vvill not say there hath been so absolute a consent in it by the practice of Christians as in the mariage of one to one It is argued indeed in the late Book called Vxor Ebraica pretending onely to relate the opinions and practice of Christians in mater of divorce but intending as it should seem by the Authors opinion declared elsewhere that there is no such thing as Ecclesiasticall Power or any society of the Church by Gods Law to inferre that the Church hath nothing to do vvith Matrimoniall causes vvhich it hath nothing to do with if any thing but the lavv of the Church can secure the conscience in point of divorce p. 543. 544. that so long as the Christians vvere mingled with the Jews they observed the judiciall laws of the Synagogue and therefore corrected all divorces good beâ—or God which were according to Moses Lavv. And therefore that vvhatso ever was in force among Christians before Constantine was in force meerly by the voluntary consent of Christians vvhich vvas to give vvay vvhen the secular Power should otherwise provide as in mater of divorce so in other Matrimoniall causes This is thâ—â—â—â—ich seems to be intended p. 559. But this pretence is rooted up by proving the Church to be a society and Body founded by God to communicate in the service of God for the attaining of everlasting life For thereupon it remâ—â—ns evident that the Lavvs thereof came not originally from the voluntary consent of Christians unlesse you understand that consent whereby they submit to the Christian faith that they may be saved and thereupon find themselves tieâ— to submit to them from whom they receive that faith whereby they hope to be saved but from those who first delivered Christianity to the Church that is from our Lord his Apostles And had Christians been left to their own choice it is not possible they should have imposed upon themselves that is that the whole Church should have received that charge of not divorcing which the Rules and Customes of the Church evidence to have been in force through the whole Church as by and by it will appear As for the time when the Christians observed Moses Law that excellent saying of Justine the Martyâ— takes place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes and by their own lives go beyond the Laws For the Jews Law was then their Civill Law because authorized by the Romanes in as much as they restrained it not So by complying with the Jews they gained the free exercise of their Christianity as well as invited them to admit and receive it But did they therefore renounce the Law of Christ where it restrained them more then the Law of Moses Did they allow themselves more wives then one when Moses allowed it the Jews and they complyed with Moses Certainly the Law that allows a man more wives then one never constrained any man to make use of that allowance So well might the Christians acknowledging Moses Law acknowledge themselves bound not to use the power of putting away their wives when Moses Law allowed it But it is further argued there lib. III. cap. XXVIII XXIX XXX at least it seems upon the same ground to be argued that the Roman Laws from Constantine to the fall of the Eastern Empire in a maner do allow divorce upon such causes as the Soveraign thought fit Which Laws being made by Christian Princes intending to limit that infinite liberty which the former laws of the Empire allowed either party to dissolve mariage at pleasure with all that he brought must needs pretend to secure Christians in point of conscience divorcing upon no other causes then those laws allow Constantine therefore restrains the liberty of divorce to three causes on either side On the wives side if the â—usband should Murther Poyson or Rob graves On the husbands if the wife should be an Adulteress an Impoisoner or a Bawd And this at such time as he advised with Bishops in all that he did granting then an appeal to their Courts by an act dated the same year as it is probable and lately published in Sirmondus his Appendix to Theodosius his Code without date for the year but directed to the same Ablavius P. P. to whom the form is directed Cod. Theod. lib. III. Tit. XVI which Theodosius the younger a very Christian Prince extends to many more Justinian the legislative humour being then predominant limits the mater otherwise as he thought fit His successor Justine goes beyond him in allowing divorce upon consent of parties though at neither parties choice Which Law is not found to have been repealed till it was left out of that collection of Laws called the Basilicae into which Leo the wife about the year DCCCC compiled all the Laws which he meant should stand unrepealed The particulars you may see curiously collected there Which I should make no account of did it not appear also by sundry testimonies of later times there alledged that the Greek Church did proceed according to the said Laws in blessing Mariages made upon such divorces and consequently allowing the communion of the Church to those that made them Balsamon upon Syn. VI. Can. LXXXVIII defines an unreasonable cause of divorce to be that which the Judge to wit according to the Law allows not Noâ— makes he any exception to them from any Canon of the Church writing upon Photius his Nâ—mocanon Tit. XIII 4. 30. And upon Can. Carthag CV alledging Justinian Novel CXVII he saith That the Canon is not in force to wit the Law having provided otherwise referring himselfe to that which he had written upon the VI Synode quoted afore Harmenopulus also in Prochicro sayes plainly that divorces were judged amongst them by the Imperiall Laws And Matthaus Monachus Quaest Matrim Juris Grâ—co-Rom Tomo I. p. 507. So also the Canons of Alexuis Patr. CP about MXXX alledged by our Author out of a written Copy p. 613. And Michael Chrysocephalus upon Can. Apost XLVIII p. 600. Besides Matthâ—us Blastares in Nomocan alledged by Arcudius p. 517. where he being a Greek confesseth that the Greek Church had sometimes practiced according to the Civill Laws Which had they not secured the conscience it could not it ought not to have done And what case can there be in point of mariage wherein the Law of the Land secures not the conscience if in point of divorce it do Or where is the indissolubility of mariage and the Interest of the Church in mariage grounded upon it But because it would be two gross for a Christian to say that mans Law allowing divorce can secure a Christian in conscience against Gods Law forbidding it our Lord having said Whoso puts away his wife
other cause yet forbids not what he allows not But seeing such offences fall out among Christians that be maried as are not easily discernable where the fault of them lies noâ— allowing them to part nor yet condemning both parties he limits them in case they do so not to marry again imposing thereby upon the innocent party the necessity of continence which his innocence makes tolerable and the Aâ—ostles advise if it proceed not to the parting of families easily recoverâ—ble As for the guilty if it prove a burthen or a snare he may impute it to his fault And as it was not necessary that the Church should be interessed in it so long as both parties were inabled by the Law to depart and neither proceeded to mary again So the Law not allowing it there is no marvail that the Church should interpose Let us then see how the rest of the Church allowes the exception of adultery to the purâ—oâ—e of marying again Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. in fine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Scripture plainly inacteth Thou shalâ— not a smiss thy wife but upon account of adultery Counting it adultery to mary while the one of the parted is alive Athenâ—goras de resurrect mortuorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Christian is to abâ—de as he was born or aâ— one mariage For saith he he that dismisseth his wife and marieth another committeth adultery This necessarily concerneth no morâ— thâ—n marrying again upon that divorce which the Romane Law inâ—led eithâ—r pâ—rty to make without rendring a reason and may well bâ—aâ— the exâ—eption of marying upon divorce for adultery by the Christian Law And the sâ—â—â—â—xception may well be understood in the XLVIII Câ—non of the Apâ—â—â—â—â—s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a Lay-man casting ouâ— his wife take another or one that is put away â—y another let him stand excommunicate Proviâ—ion is made against taking to wiâ—e one that had been put away for the reputation of the Clergy For it must needs be a sâ—ain to bring such a one into a mans house If it be true that Grotius alleges out of severall passages of Tertulliane that the Church in his time admitted them to mary again who had parted with their wives for adultery we need no more But though those allegations as not quoted so are no where to be â—ound yet Tertullianes opinion is to be seen by the plea that he makes contra Marc. IV. 32. that our Lord abrogâ—teth not that divorce which Moses had inacted though he restâ—ineth it Which could not be said if the divorce which our Lord alloweth did not import right to mary again Lactantius plainly signifies the same when he sayes Adulterum esse qui à marito dimissam duâ—erit Et eum qui praeter crimen adulterii uxorem dim serit ut alterum duâ—â—t That he is an adulterer who maries a wife put away by her husband And that so is he that shall put away his wife to mary another excepting the crime of adultery The great Council of almost all the West at Arles in the businesse of the Donatists provides Can. X. That those who take their wives in adultery being young Christians be exhorted not to mary others as long as they live leaving thereby hope of reconcilement Certainly they counted it not adultery which they only exhort not to do The Council of Elvira Can IX That the wife that forsakes her husband for adultery and maries another shall not communicate so long as he remains alive of the husband nothing By the VIII X. She who leaves her husband without cause and maries another is not to communicate no not at the point of death At the date of this Council before the act of Constantine man or wife parted without showing cause Without cause then is when that cause which the Church allows viz. adultery is not She that maries him who she knew had put away his wife without cause not till the point of death This is the difference between committing adultery and marying him that commits adultery by putting away his wife without adultery And it is plain the wife is stricter used by these Canons then the husband The Commentaries upon S. Pauls Epistles under S. Ambrose his name say plainly 1 Cor. VII That the man may mary again having put away his wife for adultery not the wife having put away her husband because the man is the head of the woman I do not find this reason sufficient For S. Paul maketh the interest of the wife in the husband and that of the husband in the wife both one and the same Nor do I find the reason sufficient which Cardinall Cajetane hath given for him upon Mat. XIX 9. to wit because our Lord saying He that putteth away his wife unlesse for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery sayes nothing of what the woman may do in that case For Mark X. 11. 12. he sayes as much for the wife as for the husband not expressing the exception Why then should I not be extended to her when he addeth it But I conceive that though by Gods Law the woman be restrained no more then the man yet the Law of the Church might restrain that which Gods law restrained not And so though the man be onely advised not to mary again by the Canon of Arles yet the woman might be put to Penance so long as her first husband remained alive by the Canon of Elvira For I see S. Basil ad Amphil. Can IX confesses that though S. Paul makes the case of both equall yet custome put the woman to Penance marying upon the adultery of her husband Some ground of difference nature it selfe inforces in that the man taints not the wives issue nor brings that infamy upon her bed as she upon his In the mean time whatsoever we say of that it is manifest they held it not adultery for the party that parted for adultery to mary again And as for Fabiola who having put away a notorious adulterous husband maried another after the death of this second did voluntary Penance for it as you find in S. Jerome Epist XXX It may be the Church exacted it not because during her second Husbands time it is not said that she communicated not And it may be she followed S. Jeromes opinion which he expresseth Epist XLVII Some passages of S. Basil S. Chrysostome and Gregory Nazianze are alleged in vain signifying onely the insolubility of mariage which may allow the exception which the Gospel maketh and must allow it when we see the custome testified by S. Basil to the contrary And S. Chrysostome when S. Paul sayes of the wife If she part understands him If she part upon ordinary displeasures which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or pusillanimities which the courage of a true Christian would neglect and over see Innocent I. Pope Epist ad Exuperium puts them only to Penance that mary again having put away wives or husbands Not supposing adultery But
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
and not for adultery remaining alive Then we see what a horrible breach the civil Power hath made upon Christianity by hindring the Power of the Church to take place For on the one side the blessing of the Church seems to concur to the securing of the consciences of particular Christians that they forfeit not their interest in the promises of the Gospell by doing that to which the Church for avoiding greater mischiefe is constrained to concurre On the other side that which is done is not onely by the consent of the whole Church in the sense of our Lords Law but by those Divines of the Eastern Church which writ during time that this corruption is pretended as Euthymius and Theophylact upon Mat. V. condemned for adultery Now supposing the Law to part Wedlock the Canon not suffering to mary again S. Pauls alternative is whole Either not to part or parting to be reconciled but not to mary again And therefore the Church had no more reason to interpose in that case then to censure who does wrong in going to sute For wrong is alwaies done but because it is between two it is not censurable onely S. Pauls aim of reconciling them is harder to be attained when the dowry is recovered then when cohibitation onely is parted And therefore as that licentiousnesse in divorcing which the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes and Alysimes did or do use is an evidence that Christianity was not so fully received or did not totally prevail amongst them So when the Greek Church yielded to allow those divorces which the Civil Law allowed which at the first it did not do then was their Christianity imbased and corrupted Which though it cannot have come to passe without the fault of the Clergy yet it is most to be charged upon the secular power the interesse whereof it inlargeth to the prejudice of Christianity For as in times of Apostacy and factions in the Church it hath been many times constrained to receive or retain those of whose salvation it cannot presume at the peril of their own souls So when it seems lesse evill to yield to that violence which the secular Power offers then to abandon the protection thereof those that impose violence are far more chargeable with the souls that perish by the means thereof then those that yield to iâ— for the best And that this may serve for a great part of excuse for the Greek Church we have great argument to believe Because since the taking of Constantinople being no more tied by the Civil Laws of the supream Power they allow no divorce but for adultery Neither is there any further difference between them and the Latin Church but whither Gods law upon divorce for adultery allow marying again or not Which the Council of Trent hath no further impeached then in case it be maintained that the Church erreth in saying that the bond of mariage remains insoluble notwithstanding adultery on either side Conc. Tied Sess XXIV cap. VII least the subjects of the State of Venice should be condemned unheard who had alwaies maried after divorce for adultery as the History relateth CHAP. XIV Another opinion admitting the ground of lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Conscience and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bounds of Ecclesiasticall Power in Mariage upon these grounds I Am now to propose another opinion pretending to justifie the Imperiall Laws examined concerning divorce the moderation whereof I do much esteem above these novelties tending to cast one Article concerning the Holy Catholick Apostolick Church out of the common faith of all Christians It saith that the secular Power is able to limit the conditions upon which mariage is contracted as being indeed a civill contract so that mariage contracted contrary to the conditions limited by the secular Power shall be ipso facto void the persons being by the Law rendred uncapable of contracting the same And that by the same reason the same Power is able to prescribe such conditions as coming to passe after mariage are of force to void it by virtue of the provision going before declaring it void whensoever such conditions should come to passe As in case of murder poysoning treason forgery robbery sacriledge in case of impotence absence of long time and the like for in case of mutual consent or upon reasonable cause without disparagement themselves dare not take upon them to say that the secular power can make any lawfull divorce This opinion is indeed considerable in regard of those impediments which Canonists and Casuists declare to have the force of avoiding mariage consummate by carnall knowledge For if they or some of them may appear to be well grounded there can be nothing more effectuall to clear my first intent to wit what is the true interesse and right of the Church in determining Matrimonial causes I say then that upon the suppositions premised that the Church is a Society founded by God and that there is a peculiar Law of our Lord concerning the mariages of Christians it necessarily followeth that as there are diverâ—e things which make mariages void or unlawfull so the Church is to be satisfied that there is none of them to be found in those mariages which it alloweth If we consider the Church generally as a Society of reasonable people certainly those things which render the contracts of all reasonable people either void or unlawfull in what Society soever they live must needs be thought to render either void or unlawfull those mariages that are so contracted in the Church As for the purpose Whatsoever is contracted either by fraud or by force is of it selfe originally void supposing that fraud or that force to have been the cause why it was contracted The reason being the same that ties a man to any thing which ever he contracted which is his own free consent in what he is not limited to by the law of God and Nature For if this be the reason that obliges where this reason fails the obligation of necessity ceaseth And shall it then be thought that any solemnity which the Church may celebrate a mariage contracted by force with can avail to make that contract binding Or that a cheat which had it not been believed a man would not have maried nor the mariage have been solemnized when it is solemnized shall have force to oblige This to those who believing that mariage is a Sacrament do think it consequent that the solemnizing of mariage renders those mariages of force to bind the parties which otherwise are not onely unlawful but also void For though I cannot here balk my order and resolve how many Sacraments there are and whether mariage
be one of them or not yet since I can say that supposing it were this would not follow for the reason which I have said nothing hinders ouâ— discourse to proceed as supposing it were not granting that it is In particular seeing that by the Law of Christianity none can mary with one that is bound to another already the innocent party so married by cousenage is so farre from being obliged by it as to be obliged not to use it upon notice Again in particular seeing that Christianity declareth mariage to intend procreation and the remedy of concupiscence the uglinesse whereof was never discovered by Idolators and Pagans wheresoever is discovered a naturall impotence to per-form the act of mariage there appeareth an error which had it not been the mariage had not been made And therefore adding the generall to the particular the contract must appear voide The same is much more to be said if by any deceit there hath been an error in the sex of one of the parties Difference in Religion between Christians and Pagans between Christians and Jews renders mariage void by virtue of the premises though it oblige not Christians to make use of their right by renouncing it as Jews were obliged to desert Idolaters But that there may some new Religion spring up in the world upon the divisions of the Church which we see are possible which question may be made whether it be lawful or whether expedient for Christians either to mary or to continue maried with suppose for the present that of the Gnosticks that of the Priscillianists that of our Ranters or Quakers who can deny And supposing such a question made and supposing the Church to be a Society trusted with the guard of Gods Law concerning mariage what determination can secure the conscience of a Christian but the determination of the Church in a cause grounded on mater of Christianity for the guard whereof the Church standeth Doth not all the world acknowledge a publick reputation of that honesty which Christianity pretendeth and challengeth to be performed in the mariage of Christians as they are Christians Do not all Christians acknowledge that there is a neernesse both of blood and of alliance within which Christians are forbidden to mary You will say to me that these degrees are limited by the Law of God in the XVIII of Leviticus and that the Church hath no more to do in prohibiting that which is not there prohibited then in licensing that which is But that will not serve my turn having proved that the Law of Moses in the first instance was given for the civill Law of one people of the Jews and for their civill happinesse in the Land of promise given them on condition of living according to it with a promise of freedom over themselves so doing The Church on the contrary a society of all Christendom founded upon undertaking the Law of Christ with promise of everlasting happinesse For what appearance is there that the same Law should contain the condition of temporall and eternal happinesse in any part of humane life and conversation Indeed he that should argue that seeing God prohibited to many degrees of affinity and consanguinity in the mariages of his ancient people whom he treated expresly with upon onely temporall promises all the same degrees therefore are prohibited Christians whom God deals with upon the promise of the world to come I cannot see how his argument could find an answer But having showed that Christians are bound to straiter terms of Godlinesse by the law of Christ then the ancient people of God whom God obliged himselfe to for the world to come but by intimations which needed stronger inclinations to virtue to imbrace will it not follow that the provision of the Levitical Law is no exception to this generall in mater of mariage Indeed it is not the power of the Church that brings in this ground of restraining more then is restrained by the Levitical Law but the nature of Christianity which I showed from the beginning to be in order of nature before the constitution of the Church and ancient to it But having showed that there is no presumption in Christianity to hinder that to belong to the Law of the Church which is not recorded in the Scripture by consequence I have showed that the practice of the Church may be sufficient evidence for it and that the power of the Church is not onely sufficient but necessary to the determining of that which is not determined by it I confesse I have a difficult objection to answer when I read Levit. XVIII 24. 25. Be not polluted with any of these For with these were the Nations polluted which I drive out before your face And the earth is polluted and I visit the iniquity thereof upon it and she spueth out her inhabitants For by this it should seem that all the prohibitions of that chapter contained in the genenerall term of these thinge stood by the perpetuall Law of God and Nature so that they were never dispensed with before the Law and that therefore there can be no reason to understand any degree to be prohibited Christians which was not prohibited Jews The objection were difficult enough had we not peremtory instances to choke them with that argue thus For is it possible for any reasonable man to imagine that God should call those things which the Fathers practised till now those abominations for which he drives out the seven Nations from before his people Is it not manifest that Jacob was maried to two Sisters at once that Moses and Aaron came of the mariage of the Mothers Sister Exod. VI. 20 that Abraham was maried to his brothers daughter at least And is it strange that should be prohibited by Moses Law which before was dispensed with But supposing that difference between the Law and the Gospel that I have proved were it not strange that that no more should be prohibited under the Gospel then by the Law Of the Polygamy of the Fathers before the Law I said enough afore to show that it was dispensed with how it was dispensed with I said not which seems to make men difficult of beliefe in the point And truly that which the Fathers say sometimes that they were taught by Gods spirit that they might do it for the maintenance of the righteous seed seems somewhat strange if we understood it as if the world did acknowledge it to be prohibited till the chiefe friends of God had particular revelation from him that it was allowed them being forbidden all the world besides Now we have good information from the Jews which all men of learning do now accept for Historical truth that after the flood there were certain precepts delivered to Noe and his Sons which therefore they call the seven precepts of the Sonnes of Noe with an intent to oblige all Nations among which there was one that prohibited the uncovering of nakednesse signifying thereby the forbearance of
change the customes of the Church Therefore this repeal never took place in the West For first the Gothes retained Theodosius his Law as Cassidore VII 46. testifieth which Cvias saith is the reason why in Gaiâ—s out of whom Justinian took his Institutes for the most part it is at this day read Duorum fratrum vel sororum liberi vel fratris sororis jungi non possunt The children of two Brothers or Sisters or of a Brother and Sister may not mary together contrary to that which Justinian is known to have inacted Then the later Emperours revived the Law of Theodosius upon which occasion it is still read in many Copies of the Institutes de Nupt. X. 4. non possunt expresly against many parts of Justinians Law And for the East how shall we say that Justinians Law was repealed or upon what ground but that the custome of the Church prevailed to move Christian Emperours to repeal it seeing Christendom scandalized at the license introduced by it He therefore that alleges Iâ—stinian in these cases or even Moses let him allege Herods marying his Brothers Daughter and espousing his Daughter to his Brother Pheroras in Iosephus Aâ—t XII XVI and so allowing the same which when Claudius for his own lust licensed there was scarce found a Gentleman in Rome that would do the like as Tacitus reporteth Indeed when S. Austine says this was rarely done afore Theodosius signifying that sometimes it was done we must accknowledge not onely that the mariage was not void that was so made from the beginning for neither is the mariage of the deceased wives Sister or of the neece void by the Canons of the Apostles and the Eliberine Canon injoyns upon marying the wives sister five yeares Penance signifying that it was not void but also we remain uncertain whether it were censured by the Church or how But when S. Gregory allows Austine the Monk to allow the first Christian Saxons to mary in the fourth degree we are not certified whither according to the account of the Romane Law or according to that account which the Popes afterwards brought in use For the Romane Law counting the stock for one made no first degree in the cross line but reckoned Brothers the second and by consequence Cousin Germanes the fourth determining both legall successions and affinities within seven degrees which are sometime called six as you include both terms or exclude the one L. X. ff de gradibus affinibus Paulus Sent. IV. 11. ubi Anianus Modest L. XLV ff de gradibus affinibuâ— Whereupon mariage was first forbidden in the West as far as the seventh degree inclusive Caus XXV q. 2 3. cap. 20. ib. Greg. P P. I. Nic. P P. II. c. 17. ib. sentent IV. dist XL. Isid Orig. IX c. 6. Caus XXXV q. 5. Grat. c. 21. whereby it should seem that this degree was dispensed with by S. Gregory being otherwise then prohibited But the Pope afterwards introducing a contrary way of counting brothers for one degree and Cousin Germanes the second which before were the second and the fourth determined kindred by seven of these degrees which were before just halfe so many Alex. PP 2. c. 2. Caus XXXV q. 5. and all these prohibited c. 14. Caus XXXV q. 2 3. till reduced to the fourth by the Laterane Council under Innocent III. for the difficulty and burthen of it which fourth is just the eight by the former account which is now the law of the West under the Pope A thing which I cannot admire at enough either how proposed or how admitted Whereas in the East the seventh degree according to the Roman account is neither permitted nor the mariage dissolved if consummate Ius Graecorum L. III. p. 204. lib. IV. pag. 266. afterwards under Michael Patriarch of C P. Ib. lib. 3. p. 206. the seventh was forbidden the eighth alwayes licensed See further Harmenop lib. IV. Tit. 5 Arcudius VII 30. which I allege all to no purpose but this that the consent of Christendom submitting to be restrained beyond all degrees any way pretended to be expressed by Gods Law is an evidence of the two Principles alledged that they were from the beginning admitted by all Christendom Indeed when it is said that which the Church censured not which S. Gregory dispensed with which the Romane Emperours and Gothish Kings reserved themselves a power of dispensing in as appeares by a Law of Honorius and Theodosius in C. Theod. Si nuptia ex resciptâ— pâ—tantur and by Cassiâ—d VII 46. It is no marvail if it be permitted by the Statute of H. VIII XXXVI 38. we may see the case hath been not much otherwise with us since that statute then with Christendom before the act of Theodosius For as then the known custome of the Church so since with us the remains of the opinion of that publick honesty which Christianity first introduced hath been the cause that few have used the known liberty of the temporal law and that with such reluctation of judgement as hath been thought the occasion of evill consequences As for those degrees which being prohibited by the Popes are of course dispensed in for paying the fees without any notice of particular reason in the case as it is not for me either to maintain the abuse of Ecclesiasticall power or because of the abuse to yield the Church to have no power in those causes which it could have no power in if that power might not be abused so I am able to conclude that it were more Christian for any Christian state to undergo a burthen altogether unreasonable then to shake of a burthen for which there is so much reason in Christianity as I have showed for prohibiting the mariage of Cousin Germanes Another impediment of force to void mariage whether onely contracted or consummate also by carnall knowledge pretended by the Church of Rome and practised in the Eastern Church is that of profession of single life to attend upon the service of God alone For whether Christians under wedlock upon consent may part from bed and bord for this purpose there is no reason for any Christian to make difficulty the wish of S. Paul that all were as he 1 Cor. VII 1. taking place in them as well as in all others That to avoid fornication one man should mary one wife not taking place but in them in whom no such resolution is supposed Upon which supposition they are commanded to return to the use of wedlock after having retired for Prayer and Fasting least Satan tempt them through their incontinence But this is disputable whether it be a dissolution of the bond or onely a suspension of the exercise of mariage It is further pretended that the one party may by publishing such a profession make void the mariage that is not yet consummate by carnall knowledge leaving the other free to mary elsewhere This in the Church of Rome For in the Eastern Church I doubt
not that those Imperial Laws took place which made this profession a lawful cause of dissolving mariage in being per bonam gratiam as the Romane Law called it whether the party so deserted were allowed to mary elsewhere or not And indeed we find S. Basil qq fusius explicat XII and S. Chrysostome in Mat. hom LXIX ad pop Ant. in 1 Tim. hom XIV together with Cassiane in the example of Theonas Collat. XXI 9. 10. in their zeal to monasticall life advising maried persons not to stay for the consent of their parties in making such a profession as this At such time as the West where monasticall life was not yet so originally spread S. Hierome Epist XIV and S. Augustine Epist XLV CXCIX de adult conjugiis maintain the contrary opinion Which to me I confesse seems faâ— more probable For granting single life duely ordered to be the ordinary way and means of attaining perfection in Christianity according to the promises this state of eminence necessarily supposeth that which is necessary to the being of Christianity Therefore the way to perfection must be grounded upon justice Now in justice the contract of mariage among Christians gives each party that interesse in the others body which mariage exerciseth Which interesse noting but consent seems to dissolve And therefore seeing there is no Tradition of the whole Church to inforce this right not onely particular Churches not allowing it shall not seem to me to depart from the Unity of the whole in so doing But also Soveraign Powers through their severall dominions in regard of the interesse which all States have in the mariage or single life of their subjects shall lawfully use their Power to limit the force of it But as for mariage consummate and used I cannot see how the party deserting upon such pretense is excused from the guilt of adultery which the deserted may commit either single or maried again As for the question that may be made whither the mariage of one that hath professed single life be void or valid supposing the profession of single life to be agreeable to Christianity as I conceive I have showed sufficient reason to believe there is no consideration sufficient to make mariage after it valid but the abuse of the profession it selfe amounting to such a height as may serve to satisfie a Christian that in consideration thereof it is it selfe in the first place become void Another impediment yet remains questionable whether it be of force to dissolve those mariages which are called clandestine whither for want of consent in the Parents or the solemnities of the Church Some think that want of consent of Parents not onely makes the act unlawfull which all agree in but the mariage void As if the reverence due to Parents by Gods law did make a mans contract with a thirdperson void who is no waies bound to inquire whither his free consent be lawfully exercised or not In the Scriptures we see Gods people proceed by consent of Parents and daughters especially S. Paul supposes to referre themselves to their Fathers 1 Cor. VII 36. But neither was Esaus mariage taken to be void because it was made without such consent Geâ— XXVII 45. Nor was there any particular consent of Iacobs Parents to his mariages Gen. XXIX nor were the Fathers of Iudah or of Tobias made acquainted with their mariages And as for the Romane Laws which void mariages for want of this consent in some cases it is no more an argument of the Law of nature then the power of the Father by the same Laws which neverthelesse allow the Mother none when as Gods Law alwayes as well as the Law of Moses gives them equall interesse It is therefore manifest that there is ground in Gods Law to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage contracted without it And that either for the Church as the reverence of Parents is a part of Gods law now in being which the power of the Church pretendeth to preserve Or for the secular Power as the interesse of Parents in the mariages of their children is of consequence to the publick peace and wealth The same may be said of those mariages that are made without witness or without solemnities of the Church saving that those solemnities which contain the approbation of the Church arising upon the account of the Church it is evidently more proper for the Church to make this impediment of force to dissolve mariage For the secular power to inâ—ct the Law of the Church by force of arms and temporall penalties There remains one cause more to hinder mariage so as to dissolve it when consummate being made notwithstanding it the condition of slavery in either of the parties at such time when as the rights of bondage subsisted This cause stands now by the Canon Law and is inâ—orced and limited by the Casuists But it was not the Canon Law that first voided the mariage of a slave taken for free but the Laws of the Empire as Ivo himselfe a Collector of the Canons witnesseth Epist CCXLIII where having produced the Law of Iustiniane he thus proceedeth In tali ergo contractu quod lex damnat non homo sed iâ—stitia separat quia quod contra leges praesumitur per leges solui meretur In such a contract then that which the law oondemns it is not man but justice thâ—â— separates Because what is presumed against Law by law deserves to be dissolved Which reâ—son takes place also in legall kindred according to the Imperiall Lawes whereby an adopted Brother is disabled to mary his sister by adoption In imitation whereof an opinion of the publick honesty of Christianity so prevâ—iled in that Church afterwards that being once Gossips came to be an hindrance of mariage which opinion howsoever grounded notwithstanding introduced the same kind of burthen and no other then that of legall kindred by adoptions These reasons though not admitted by all professions in Religion that shall meet with this yet seeing they proceed upon one and the same common ground the effect and consequence whereof cannot be admitted in some and refused by the rest And seeing that some of them are admitted on all sides there being no other reason sufficient why they should be admitted may serve to evidence the interesse of the Church in Matrimoniall causes And that evidence may serve to inferre that though the secular Power hath also an interess in the same yet in regard of the trouble which concurrence may cause in civill Government Christian Princes and States have done wisely as well as in regard to the interess of the Church they have done Christianly in referring the conduct of Matrimonial causes almost wholly to the Church Especially supposing that they take good heed that the laws thereof neither trench upon the Interess of their Crown not the wealth of their subjects But whither secular Power can make laws by virtue whereof that which a man voluntarily acts afterwards
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
of the Church not onely of divine right as provided for by the Apostles but holding the rank of an end to which particular provisions of the Apostles in this mater seem but as means It is true I am farre from believing that had the Reformation retained this Apostolical Government the Church of Rome would thereby have been moved to joyn in it But when I see the Schisme which it hath occasioned to stand partly upon this difference When I see so many particulars begun by the Apostles as the Scriptures themselves evidence others determinable by the Church When I see those that correct Magnificat introduce instead of them those Lawes which have neither any witnesse from the Scriptures nor any footing in the authority of the whole Church I must needs conclude those that do these things in as much as they do them to be causes of the Schism that is Schismaticks For what authority upon earth can introduce any form reconcileable with that which the Apostles first introduced to procure the vanity of the Church being to continue one and the same Body from the beginning to the end but he must give cause of dissolving the unity of the said Body unlesse he can convince the rest of the Church that it is Gods act to whom all the Church is to be subject whereas to him they are not Wherâ—fore let not Presbyterians or Independents think that they have done their work when they can answer texts of Scripture so as not to be convinced that Bishops are of divine Right Unless they can harden themselves against the belief of one Catholick Church they must further give account why they depart from that which is not against Gods Law to introduce that which it commandeth not For that is to proclaim to the Church that they will not be of it unlesse they may be governed as they list themselves Whereas they cannot be of it by being governed otherwise then the whole Church from the beginning hath been Let them not marvail that those who go not along with them in it forewarn others of making themselves Schismaticks by communicating in their innovations But against the Independants I must further take notice that by the supposition of one Society of the whole Church the whole pretense of the Congregations is quite excluded For if God appointed all Churches to make one Church by the communion of all in the service of God supposing the same faith then did not God appoint all Congregations to be chief within themselves but to depend upon the whole both for the Rule of Faith and for the order of Gods service Again it is evident to common sense that the people of one Church can pretend no interess to give Law to another Church Whereas whomsoever we inable to preserve the unity of the whole those persons must eithâ—r have right to oblige those that are not of their own Congregations or else God shall hâ—ve provided that the Church shall be one but excluded the onely means by which it can be preserved one And therefore to all those texts of Scriptures which are alleged to prove the chief Power of the People in the Church which is the ground of the Congregations I give here this general answer which elsewhere I have applied to the said several passages First by way of exception that they can inferre no more now against the Clergy then they could thâ—n against the Apostles So that seeing the Apostles were then chief notwithstanding all that those Scriptures contain the Clergy also remain now chief in the Church Secondly and directly that they import no more then the tesâ—imony consent and concurrence of the people by way of suffrage or agreement and applause to the Acts of the Clergy the interess whereof is grounded upon the sensible knowledge which the people have of the persons concerned in Ordinations Censures or other Acts of the Church in regard whâ—reof it is no more then reason requires that they be duly satisfied of the proceedings of the Church without making them Judges of maters of Right in it So that to make the people chief in Church maters upon account of this Title is to make the people of England Soveraign because English Juries have power to return evidence in mater of fact either effectual or void Another reason I here advance upon supposition of the force and weight of the Tradition of the Church in evidencing the reason and intent of the sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in the Scriptures Philip one of the seven having preached and converted and baptized the Samaritanes the Apostles at Jerusalem send down to them Peter and John at whose prâ—yers with â—â—ying thâ—â—r 〈◊〉 on them they receive the Holy Ghost Act. VIII 14-17 And so S. Paul â—â—yes hâ—nds upon the twelve men that were baptized afore at Ephesus â—â—â—â—hey receive the Holy Ghost Act. XIX 1-8 For what reason shall we imagine why they that were inâ—bled to baptize were not â—â—abled to give the Holy Ghost baptism being the condition upon which the Holy Ghost was due by the promise of the Gospel but to show that they were baptized into the uniâ—y of the Church out of which they were not to expect the Holy Ghost Thâ—refore that their Baptism may have effect that is give the Holy Ghost the allowâ—nce of the Apostles upon whose government the unity of the Church dependeth is requite Whiâ—h allowance their prayers for the Holy Ghost and Impoâ—â—â—ion of hands implâ—eth and presupposeth It cannot be doubted that the visible Grace of â—peaking in strâ—nge languages the great works of God was then given for an evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with Gods people whereupon it is called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. The manifestatioâ— of the Spirit But evâ—n of this kind of Graces S. Paul saith again 1 Cor. XIV 32. 33. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets For God is not the author of unsetlednesse but of order as in all Churches of the Saints If therefore there come no confusion upon Prophets Prophesying one by one because God who is the Author of Order grants such inspirations and revelations to inferiours that they cease not therefore to be subject to those which he grants to Superiours How much more re asonable is it that the Gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that are baptized should neverthelesse deâ—end upon the blessing of the Apostles So that when S. Peter sayes to them that were convâ—rted at Pentecost Act. II. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sinnes and yâ— shall receive the gift of the Holy â—host It seems to me no more then reason requires that he â—upposes the same blessing As also S. Paul in those of whom he saith That having believed in Christ they were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise And again Grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby ye are sealed to the day
S. Peter and Iohn were wonne to Christianity according to the division which S. Paul hath recorded unto us Gal. II. 9. 10. whereupon we see him exercise the the office of an Apostle to the Churches of the Jews dispersions by his Epistle Iames I. 1. But let us proceed S. Paul and Barnabas ordained their Presbyters Church by Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XIV 23. And appointed Titus to constitute Presbyters in Creete City by City Tit. I. 5. Be it granted because Epiphanius hath said it and it is a thing in it self reasonable that in some places the number of believers was so small that there needed but a Bishop to govern and a Deacon or Deacons to attend upon the execution of his orders That there should be Churches constituted by the name of such Churches in such Provinces and no more people any where signified would make them Churches that might be not that were Tertullians saying Ubi tres Ecclesia licet laici Where there be three though of the Laity there is a Church is not meant of such Churches But that three Christians or two in our Saviours terms Mat. XVIII 19. that meet to serve God are a Church because so assembled being of the Church At least in mother Churches of mother Cities where the Apostles made their chiefe residence because the harvest was there greatest and likewise their Ministers that there should be no more Christians then one Bishop could govern and teach during the Apostles time seems to me to cary no appearance of truth And to imagine that those who were designed for Pastors of Churches in being were alwaies resident in the mother Church though occasions whereof there is no rule might and must cause their presence there many times the reason of their office admits not But if we admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie more then one in a City and a Church it seems not to be refutable that they were appropriate to those Churches The name of Presbyters of such and such Churches bâ—ing relative to the people of their respective Churches Further S. Paul sâ—nding to Ephesus called to him the Elders of the Church whom by and by he saith The Holy Ghost had placed Bishops over his flock to feed the Church of God Act. XX. 17. 28. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the article may referre us either to the whole Church or to that part of the Church which the speech most concerned or in fine to the very Church of Ephesus There is a conjecture that S. Paul makes them Bishops by saying that God had made them Bishops of his Church who were Presbyters when he sent for them But I allow not those of the Church of Rome that our Lord made the Bread and Wiâ—e of his last Supper his Body and Blood by saying This is my Body this is my Blood But by that which he did before he said it For the same reason therefore I cannot allow that S. Paul here makes them Bishops of Presbyters by saying God hath made you Bishops in his Church not declaring by any thing that he sayes or does any intent so to do thereby to be understood But I cannot but consider that Irâ—naeus III. 14. tells us that S. Paul at this time called together the Bishops and Presbyters Qui erant ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus Which were of Ephesus and other the next Citâ—â—s and S. Jerome ad Evagr. that he called together omnes illos apud quâ—s praedicaverat All those wiâ—h whom he had preached Which if we grant the article of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referrs us to that part of the Church that was concerned whereas the words as they lie as he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church referre us to the Church there mentioned of Ephesus When S. Paul addresses his Episâ—le to the Philippians together with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 2. when in his instructions to Timothy he passes immediately from Bishops to Deacons 1 Tim. III. 1-8 It is said that the Bishops of the next Cities together with their Deacons were present or ordinarily resident on the Capital City according to that which I said even now of Ephesus And it may be said that they were Bishops and Deacons at large in respect to the Church at large not applyed to the functions either of Bishop or Priests in this or that Church And truly I do remember the words of Clemens ad Corinth speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching therefore the Word by Cities and by Countries and Baptizing they made the first-fruits of them whom they had baptized Bishops and Deacons of those that should believe And that S. Paul addresses his Epistles to the Church that is at Corinth and to all that called on the name of the Lord in all Achaia 2 Cor. I. 1. So that they provided for the ordering of them that should become or were become Christians before they were yet cast into Churches And it is reasonable to think that those were ordained in the mother Cities and there stood upon their guard expecting opportunity of framing their flocks And that this was a cause why the titles of Bishops and Presbyters are promiscuously used and attributed But I cannot therefore yield that one Bishop with one or more Deacons could serve the Churches of Philippi Corinth or Ephesus Or that as yet no Governours were affected and applied to several Churches For when S. Paul directs Timothy to dispose of the stock of the Church for the Honour that is the maintenance of widows and Presbyters to receive accusations against Presbyters under two or three witnesses and to rebuke them that should offend before all 1 Tim. V. 2. 16-28 it seems not reasonable to imagine Timothy the Judge of the Biships of inferiour Churches as regularly every Bishop is of his own Presbyters that he should rebuke the Bishop of Forâ—iâ—e though inferiour Churches before the people of his Church of Ephesus that he should dispose of the stock of his Church at Ephesus upon Widows or Presbyters of other Churches then that at Ephesus But rather that the proceeding of Timothy is prescribed as a â—orm for the proceeding of others in their respective Churches Another opinion saith That the Deacons whom S. Paul puts next to Bishops are Presbyters called also Ministers of God and Christ as Timothy 1 Thes III. 2. S. Paul himself 2 Cor. II. 23. Ministers of the New Testament as S. Paul 2 Cor. III. 6. Ministers of the Gospel as S. Paul Ephe. III. 7. Ministers of Righteousness into whom the Ministers of Satan are transformed 2 Cor. XI 15. Ministers of the Church as S. Paul Col. I. 25. Observing that the vulgar Latine of S. Jerome translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. Diaconos elsewhere in thirty places Ministros and concluding that these Deacons are the same with Presbyters under the Apostles and the Bishops their
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
way allow that other Churches could be obliged to follow the Church of Rome in this sentence the unity of the Church which is the end being of nearer interest and concernment to them all then the authority of Victor or of his Church or then uniformity in this point which is but the mean to obtain it Which as it is true so was it indeed the reason that Irenaeus alleged to Victor â—o divert him from that resolution in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 25. 26. where you may see that his credit and the credit of the rest of those that held communion with both prevailed to void those leters which Victor had issued to break of communion with the Churches of Asia And therefore I cannot wish to show you better marks both of the dependence of Churches and the superiority of the Church of Rome and also that this superiority was regular and not soveraign as that of a Monarch when the greatest of inferiour Churches have recourse and respect to it as the center of their communion and yet do not absolutely give up themselves to yield to the authority of it as they do to the sentence of the Council of Niâ—aea because it could not be reasonable for the Churches of Asia to stand out with it Whereby you see the difference between the authority of the Pope and the authority of a general Council The businesse of Novatianus will not require many words to evidence the same consequence by it The Church of Rome it self was the seat of the businesse and the calamity thereof suffering a Schism within her own bowels the occasion of it And I appeal to the experience of the world whither intestine dissension do not discover the respect all men owe to their Neigbours by the need they have of them for the composing of it But not to speak of occasion of advantage but of termes of right that Church having gotten two Heads Cornelius and Novatianus who was then judge which side ought to be accounted the Church of Rome â—o that the other party should be obliged to submit and joyn with it For had it been a Law that obliged the whole Church that those who had fallen away in time of persecution be not admitted to Penance and by consequence to the communion any more which was the motive and ground why Novatianus was made Bishop against Cornelius certainly the rest of the Church must have acknowledged Novatianus who maintained it not Cornelius who waved it Notwithstanding that Cornelius was made by sixteen Bishops of the then resort of that Church Novatianus but by three For though the Canon of the Apostles requiring onely three Bishops or two at least to the ordaining of a Bishop may very well seem to be the ancienter custome in the Church then the IV Canon of Nicaea which provideth that it be done by the consent of all the resort either present or under their hands referring themselves to three that are present yet is it plain that the act of three oâ— two at least was accepted upon presumption of the consent of the rest anâ—â—â—â— dispatch of businesse because Ordinations would otherwise have been â—nrâ—â—â—onâ—bly troublesome But this Canonicall advantage of Cornelius his câ—use could noâ— have wayed against the Novatians plea had it been indeâ—d a 〈…〉 â—â—ds Law to the whole Church that Apostates be not readâ—itted â—o 〈◊〉 For this not onely the Novatians stood upon but afterwards 〈◊〉 â—â—â— persâ—â—ution of Diocletian the Meletians fell away from the 〈…〉 â—o other quarrel as you may see by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII In thâ—◠〈…〉 the Authority of the rest of the Church must have oversway 〈…〉 of the reâ—ort of the Church of Rome the greatest part whâ—â—◠〈…〉 for Cornelius And because it was a point hitherto not decide◠〈…〉 questionâ—ble in the Church therefore it comes to the sentence 〈…〉 Now it is a question not to be answered by those who make 〈…〉 of the Church of Rome Monarch over the whole how then th◠〈…〉 giving Law to that Church should depend on other Churches as here 〈…〉 iâ— doth For the common intereâ—t of Christianity whether in mater o◠〈…〉 is the ground of the dispute or in the unity of the Church 〈…〉 calleth in question is that which makes the Novatians whither 〈…〉 Sâ—hismaticks not acknowledging Cornelius after that he was aâ—knowleâ—◠〈◊〉 â—y the rest of the Church And for this cause it is that the Churâ—h oâ— â—â—â—â—ochia that is the Synode whereof that Church was the Heâ—◠〈…〉 a return from the Church of Rome for the favour they did it in 〈◊〉 Cornâ—lâ—us which they made great difficulty to do a great while as you 〈…〉 by that which I related in the first Book For supposing that 〈…〉 of Antiochia did no more in the businesse then right required yet 〈…〉 goes he that hath right done him may well acknowlâ—ge himselfe 〈…〉 that doth him right In the mean time S. Cypriane and the Churâ—◠〈…〉 with the dependences of it declare for Cornelius from the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 with his Church of Alexandria and the dependences thereâ—◠〈…〉 â—nâ—ormation are wonne to their side Neither could Fabius an◠〈◊〉 Châ—râ—â—es that resorted to Antiochia have stood out without great mischieâ—â—â—â—â—â— whole And therefore what thanks soever they may deserve of the Church â—â— Rome for doing their duty in such a distresse of it Who can say that the Sovâ—â—aign Power of the Church of Rome obliged them to make it Soveraign de facto which being divided de jure it was not when it is so evident that the unity oâ— the Church obliged them each in their several ranks to concur to that means which God had provided for the maintenance of it by establishing the Church of Rome in the first place In the businesse that â—ell out about rebaptizing Hereticks that returned to the Church when we see the Church of Rome alone ingaged against the Churches of Africk and oâ— the East both for you must remember what I observed afore that thoâ—e who made the moâ—t difficulty in disowning Novatianus were the same that stood for rebaptizing Hereticks with the African Churches on their side we are â—ound to presume that many and great Churches depended upon it to wâ—igh against so great a consent as opposed it For in point of fact it is evident that it was the consent of the geatest part that obliged the rest to joyn with it And in point of right the presumption iâ— peremptory that the greatest part â—ould not agree to determine against Gods Law but walked within those bounds which God had confined his Church with We are not then to marvail so much at the heats which passed between Stephen Bishop of Rome on one side and S. Câ—prian â—or Cartâ—age and Firmilianus chief Bishop of Pontus on the other side â—or it is evident that they referred not themselves to Stephens opinion concerning Gods Law whose successors are now pretended infallible And yet did refer themselves to the judgement of the
to restore those that were fallen away in persecution contrary to the resolution of the Church which had referred it to a Council as we learn by S. Cyprian Epist XXXVIII XL. with Fortunatus a Bishop of this party betaking themselves to Rome are first refused by Cornelius but upon appearance of a party in his Church for them put him to a stand In this case S. Cyprian writing his LV. Epistle acknowledges the Church of Rome the seat of S. Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the Priesthood was sprung but maintaines that every Bishop hath a portion of Christs flock assigned him to govern upon his account to Christ And therefore that causes are to be ended where they riâ—e and the good intelligence between Bishops ought not to be interrupted by carying causes abroad to be judged again Is not all this true supposing the case For who câ—n chuse but blame a schismaticall attempt But could any man hinder Basilides and Martialis from seeking the Church of Rome had their cause been good seeing their adverse paâ—ty did and might seek to foâ—â—ain Churches Was it not necessary to seek both to Carthage and to Rome for the freeing of the Church of Arles under Marciâ—nus from communion with the Novatians Here I conâ—eive lies the truth Some causes of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome to wit such as necessarily concern the whole Church either in the faith or in the unity of it Such was the cause of Marcianus which could not be ended but by the same consent which cast the Novatians out of the Church Was the cause of Basilides and Martialis of the same weight was it not meerly personal and concâ—rning mater of fact whither they had indeed sacrificed to Idols or not no question remaining in point of right that such could not be Bishops yet could not the Bishops of Spain over-rule the Bishop of Rome not to receive information from the aggrievâ—d Their way was to have recourse to other Churches the consent whereof might out-way the Church of Rome together with the goodnesse of the cause And the Church of Carthage must have done the same had Felicissimus and Fortunatus found reception at Rome and credit to balâ—nce their cause against S. Cyprian and the African Church So that causes of Faith necessarily concerning the whole Church whensoever they rendâ—r the peace thereof questionable those that for their weight do not concern â—he whole will concern it when they render the peace thereof questionable And so long as Law provideth not bounds to determine what causes shall be ended at home in the parts where they rise what cause is there that may not be pretended to concern the whole and by consequence the Church of Rome which being the principal Church what cause concerning the whole can end without it He that admits not this supposition conâ—â—sting in the regular pre-eminence denying the unlimited Power of the Church of Rome over other Churches will never give a reason why recourse is alwayes had to the Church of Rome and yet if the cause require to other Churches to ballance it The unity of the Church and communion with it is the thing that is â—ought The consent of the greatest Churches that of Rome in the 〈◊〉 place is the meanes to obtain it This businesse therefore is much of kin to that of the Donatists triall under Constantine when they petitioned the secular Power that they might be heard by the Bishops of Gaul intimating the reason vvhy they declined the Bishops of Italy to be because they might be tainted with falling away or shuffling in the perâ—ecution of Diocletian which they charged their adverse party in Africk with because they expresse this for the ground of their Petition in Optatus I. that under Constantius there had been no persecution in Gaâ—l Here I must pass by the consideration of any thing that may concern the dispute between secular and Ecclesiasticall Power as not concerning this place But when Constantine by his answer assigns them for Judges the Bishops of Rome and Milane with such and such of their suffraganes joyning with them the Bishops of Collen Autun and Arles in Gaul to satisfie them it is plain that he refuses them to transgresse that respect which the constitution of the Church challenged for the Churches of Rome and Milane that such causes as concerned the unity of the Church in the Western parts of the Empire should be determined not by the Pope alone noâ— the Church of Rome alone but by the Churches of Rome and Milane as the chief Churches of that part of the Empire the Church of Rome alwayes in the first place On the other side when the Donatists not satisfied with their sentence petition the Emperour again that it may be review'd and the Emperour adjourns them for a second triall to a Council at Arles it is plain that hee allowes them not an appeal from the former sentence because many of those that were Judges in the former Synod did vote in the later Synod But it is as plain that the parties then held not the Popes judgement either alone or in Council unquestionable unlesse all were madd in pretending to give either check or strength to that sentence which was originally unquestionable If therefore a sentence given by the Pope in a Council of Italy which some Gaulish Bishops joyned thereunto might be revised in a fuller Council of Gaulish Bishops with the concurrence of many others as well Italian and Spanish to say nothing of three from Britaine the first unquestionable record of the British Churches is it not manifest that Euclids axiome that the whole is greater then any part of it takes place in the Church as well as the words of S. Jerome Orbis major est Vrbe that the world is greater then the City of Rome Surely if S. Austine Ep. CLXII say well that the Donatists might have appealed to a General Council had they been justly grieved by the sentence at Rome his saying will hold if they had been grieved by the Council of Arles though concluding the Western Church But it will hold also of the Council of Arles that it had been madnesse to call it had not the generality thereof extended to conclude the Western Church further then the former at Rome though the cause came not to it by appeal CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminences of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth HEre the next consideration for time being that of the Council of Nicaea the VI Canon whereof first limited by written Law the pre-eminences of Churches in the Empire having taken place by custome before I will not repeat that
ground for Councils and for their authority which I have laid in the first Book nor bound the right of Civil and Ecclesiasticall Power in giving force to the acts of them which I reserve for the end of this third Bood But to evidence the constitution of them from whence their authority in the Church must proceed I maintain here from the premises that the originall constitution of the Church determineth the person of the Bishop to represent his respective Church in Council And that the constitution of Councils consisting of Bishops representing their respective Churches evidenceth the authority of Bishops in the same Which produceth the effect of obliging either the whole Church or that part which the Council representeth by the consent of Votes The act of the Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles Act. XV. was respective to the Churches of Jerusalem and Antiochia with those which were planted from thence by Paul and Barn 〈…〉 made by an authority sufficient to oblige the whole Church The El 〈…〉 concurred to the vote with the Apostles those that will be so ridicul 〈…〉 for Lay Elders of Presbyters But will never tell us how the V 〈…〉 Elders should oblige the Church of Antiochia and the plantations 〈…〉 y were the Elders who joyned with the Apostles from whom they could not be dis-joyned were able to oblige the whole Church And indeed there is no mention of them in the acts of chusing Matthias and the seven Deacons Acts I. VI. which acts concerned the whole Church And therefore there is appearance that the authority which they alwayes had in respect of the Church to be constituted was by that time known to be limited by the allowance and consent of the Apostles But when I granted that S. Paul seems to allow both the Romanes and the Corinthians to eat things sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures I did not grant that his authority could derogate from the act of the Apostles But that the act of the Apostles was not intended for the Churches represented at the doing of it As that which was done Act. XXI how great soever the authority might be that did it seems to extend no further then the occasion in hand That which remains then in the Scriptures agreeth perfitly well with the original practice of the whole Church It cannot be denied that there are here and there in the records of the Church instances evidencing the sitting of Presbyters in Council which I deny not must needs import the priviledge of voting But the reason of their appearing there appears so often to be particular by commission from their Bishops and to supply their absence that there is no means in the world to darken this evidence for the superiority of Bishops For can it possibly be imagined that the Bishop should alwaies represent his Church in all Councils without choice or other act to depute him were he no more then the first of the Presbyters Is it not evident that the whole Church alwaies took him for the person without whom nothing could be done in the Church which whither in Council or out of Council never dealt with his Church but by him alwayes with his Church by his means Now for the authority of Councils thus constituted though for peace sake and because an end must be had the resolution of all Councils must come from number of Votes which swayes the determinations of all Assemblies yet there is thereupon a respect to be had to the Provinces or parts of the Church which those that vote do represent unlesse we will impute it to blame to those that suffer wrong if they submit not themselves to the determinations of those whom themselves have more right to oblige This consideration resolves into the grounds of the dependence of lesse Churches upon greater Churches all standing in the likelihood of propagating Christianity out of greater Cities into the lesse and of governing the Church in unity by submitting lesse residences to greater rather then on the contrary Which is such a principle that all men of capacity will acknowledge but all would not stand convict of had not the Church admitted it in effect from their founders before they were convict of the effect of it by humane foresight Upon this supposition the Church cannot properly be obliged by the plurality of Bishops who all have right to vote in Council but by the greatnesse and weight of the Churches for whom they serve concurring to a vote And hereof there be many traces in the Histories of the Church when they mention the deputation of some few Bishops representing numerous Provinces which for distance of place or other peremptory hinderances could not be present to frequent as others For can this be a reasonable cause why they should be obliged by the votes of those who were present in greater number The true reason why the decrees of Councils have not alwaies had nor ought alwayes to have the force and effect of definitive sentences but of â—â—rong prejudices to sway the consent of the whole Because there was never any Council so truly Generall that all parts concerned were represented by number of Voâ—es proportionable to the interesse of the Churches for whom they serve For certainly greater is the interest of greater Churches Which case whenâ—oever it comes to passe those that are not content have reason to allege that they are not to be tied by the vote of others but by their own consent And therefore the nnity of the Church requireth that there be just presumption upon the mater of decrees that they will be admitted by those who concurre not to them as no lesse for their good then for the good of the rest of the Church In the mean time the pretense of the Popes infinite Power remaines inconsistent with the very pretenâ—e of calling a Council For why so much trouble to obtain a vote that shall signifie nothing without his consent his single sentence obliging no lesse These are the grounds of that Aristocraty in which the Church was originally governed by the constitution of the Apostles unlesse we will think that a constant order viâ—â—ble in all the proceedings thereof could have come from the voluntary consâ—nt of Christendom not prevented by any obligation and drawing every part of it towards their severall interests which makes the obligation of Councils and their decrees harder to be obtained but when once obtained more firm and sure as not tending to destroy the originall way of maintaining Unity by the free correspondence and consent of those who are concerned but to shorten the trouble of obtaining it And if this were understood by the name of the Hierarchy why should not the simplicity of Apostolical Christianity own it Now because the greatnesse of Churches depended by the ground laid upon the greatnesse of the Cities which was in some sorâ— ambulatory till it was setled by the rule of the Empire begun by Adriane and compleated by Constantine my meaning will
nothing For what Jurisdiction had any civill Magistrate that govâ—rnâ—d Rome over other Cities without the Precinct oâ— it And yet shall we be so â—iâ—â—â—ulous the Canon describing the priviledges of the Church of Rome by those of Alexandria which extended as far as the Government of Aegypâ— â—o confine those of the prime Church of the Empire within the 〈…〉 I suppose therefore they have farre the best cause who suppose 〈◊〉 to be called Regiones suburbicariae which were under the Lieutenant of Rome in oppoâ—tion to the Lieutenant of Italy resident a Milane having under him seven of those Provinces into which that Government was then divided In which regard the other ten Provinces which were under the Lieutenant of the City resident at Rome are properly called Suburbicariae though pâ—rt of them were the Isles of Sicilia Sardinia and Corsica c. And here lies the greatest question nothing else bearing water in my judgement For by this Canon â—ll the right and title of the Church of Rome is to be measured by the right oâ— any one of those Churches which were the Heads of Dioceses taking Dioceses for the residences of Lieutenants all which are to be suppoâ—ed equall in power granting onely Rome the precedence which all Order requiâ—es For what right can the Church of Rome challenge which this Canon acknowleges not Is it right or wrong which the decree of the whole Church alloweth not Strongly argued I confess which notwithstanding I am not satisfied with For the intent of the Ganon being to setle the lights of Alexandria is satisfied by rehearsing the like rights in the Churches of Rome and Antiochiâ— which by supposing as in force of old it setleth for the future But is this to declare and limite the Title thereof in regard of the rest especially for the Western Church which the Councill had no occasion to meddle with Judge first by that which appears In the greatest concernments of the Church concerning Montanus concerning the keeping of Easter concerning the cause of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of the Donatists of Dionysius Alexandrinus In fine concerning those which I mentioned out of S. Cyprians Epistles What one Church can there be named to the concurrence whereof the like respect hath been had in things concerning the Faith and Unity of the Whole as that of Rome For that which follows I think there remains no dispute the priviledges thereof still increasing as well by the acts of Councils as by custome and use And of that I must demand a reason how they should come to be cast upon one had there not been from the beginning a stock of Title exclusive to any other of the greatest Churches acknowledging the order of the Apostles to have provided no further then that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chiefe Churches leaving the rest to the Church upon consideration of the State of the World to determine One particular I must insist upon for the eminence of it I have already mentioned the generall Councils whereof how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches And this admission what can it can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Councill of Nicâ—a though the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Conncils as the Churches of Britaine had their Bishops at the I. Council of Arles at the Councils of Sarâ—ica and of Ariminum in other occasions they may justly seem to referre themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the acts of it So that S. Jerome might very well name Rome and the West as the same paâ—ty in his LXXVII Epistle Haereticum me cum Occidente haereticum cum Aegypto hoc est cum Damaso Petroque condemnent Let them condemn me for an Heretick with the West and with Aegypt that is with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria And against Vigiâ—â—nâ—â—us he calls the Western Churches the Churches of the Apostolick See So S. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Crown of the West Epist X. and S. Austine cont Jul. Pelag. I. 2. Puto tibi eam partem Orbis sufficere debere in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit dominus glorioso Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem Beatum Iâ—nocentiuâ— si audire voluisses I conceive that part of the world should serve your turn in which it pleased God to Crown with a glorious Martyrdom the first of his Apostles The President of which Church blessed Innocent if you would have heard He supposes Innocent being over the Church of Rome to be over the Western Church In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril threatens John of Jerusalem that those who will have communion with the West must submit to the sentence of the Synod at Rome against Nestorius Part. I. cap. XXI the leter of Pope Agatho to the Emperour in the VI. General Council Act. IV. supposes the Synods of the Lombards Slaves Frankes Gothes and Britaines to belong to the Synod of Rome and that the Council was to expect account of them from it No otherwise then to the leter of the Synod of Rome to the second Generall Council ninety Bishops of Italy and Gaul concurred according to Theodoret. And Cornelius in S. Hieromes Catalogue writ to Flavianus Bishop of Antiochia from the Synods of Rome Gaul and Africk Whereby it may appear how the Western Churches alwayes went along with that of Rome Which though it give not the Church of Rome that priviledge over the Churches of eight Dioceses which the canons of Nicaea do confirm to the Bishops of Alexandria over the Diocese of Aegypt and the Church of Antiochia over the Eastern Diocâ—ses yet necessarily argueth a singular pre-eminence in it over them all in regard whereof he is stiled Patriarch of the West during the regular Government of the Church and being so acknowledged by King James of excellent memory in his leter to the Cardinall of Perrâ—n may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church that had rather stand divided then own him in that quality But granting the Church of Rome to be regularly the seat of the chiefe Patriarch for so he is stiled in the Council of Chalcedon Act. III. so the Emperour Justine calls Hormisdas so Justinian calls the Bishop of Rome Nov. CIX And the VI Council Act. XVIII counts five seats of Patriarchs And if Gregory Epist XI 54. acknowledge Spain to have no Patriarch and Innocent III. C. grave de Praeb dignit C. antiqua de Privil count but four it is because they would make the Pope more
then a Patriarch it will neverthelesse be questionable how faâ—re it injoyes the same rights throughout the West or rather unquestionable that he did noâ— consecrate all the â—iâ—â—ops of the West as he of Alexandria did all the Bishops of Egypt and he of Antiochia all those of the Eastern Diocese On the other side it will be unquestionable that all causes that conceâ—n the whole Church are to resort to it And if Innocent I. mean none but those when he sayes that they are excepted from the Canon of Nicaea that forbids appeals Epist ad Victricium Rothâ—m He sayes nothing but that which the constitution of the Church justifies Bâ—t the cases produced before out of S. Cypriane show that there was muâ—h lâ—ft for custoâ—â— to determine Nay rules of discipline which in my opinon the good of the whole Church then requirâ—d that they should be common to all the West â—re of this rank noâ— could any of then ever oblige the West without the Bishop of Rome But that he alone should give rules to ty all the West may have had a regular beginning from voluntary references of Himerius Bishop of Farracona in Spain to Syricius of Exuperius Bishop of Tolouse and Victricius of Roven to Innocentius but argues not that it is the originall right of that Church But that it hath increased by custome to that height as to help to make up a claime for that infinite power which I deny in stead of that regular Power which I acknowledge Judge now by reason supposing the obligation upon all of holding unity in the Church and the dependance of Churches the mean to compass it For this will oblige us to part here with the Parallel of the Empire which having a Soveraign upon earth will require the Ministers of thereof immediate or subordinate to be of equall power in equall rights Praefects Lieurenants and Governours But the Head of the Church being in heaven and his Body on earth being to be maintained in Unity by an Aristocraty of Superiours and Inferiours whither was it according to the intent of those who ordered the pre-eminence of greater Churches thâ—t that the Church of the greatest City should be equall in power to the head Churches of o her Dioceses Or that the general reason should take place between them all an eminence of power following their precedence in ranck So that whensoever it become requisite to limite this generality by positive constitutions the pre-eminence of right to fall upon one exclusively to oâ—hers Surely though we suppose that all Christendom of their free consent agreed in this Order yet must we needs argue from the uniformity of it that it must needs come froâ— the ground setled by the Apostles For it is manifest that the rights of the head Churches of Provinces had a beginning beyond the memory of all records of the Church which testifie the being of them at the time of all businesse which they relate That the head Churches of Diocesses were not advanced in a moment by the act of the Empiâ—e but moulded asore as â—t were and prepared to receiveâ— that impression of regular eminence over inferiouâ— Churches which the act of the State should stampe the Cities with over inâ—â—riour Cities yet cannot be maintained that the greatest respect was and is by the Apostles act to be given to the greatest Churches that is the Churches of greaâ—est Cities and yet that the â—riâ—â—ledges necessarily accruing by positive constitution might as justly have been placed upon the head Church of any Diocess as upon that of Rome I know I have no thanks for this of the Romanists for as S. Paul sâ—yes How shall I serve God and please men both in such a difference as this but seeing the canon of Nicaea doth necessarily confine the Church of Rome to a regular Power is it not a great signe of truth that those things which appear in the proceedings of the Church do concur to evidence a ground for the Rule of it inferring that pre-eminence which the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia cannot have but the beginning of the canon establishing ancient custome settleth Let us see some of those proceedings After the Council of Nicaea the Arians having Eusâ—bius of Nicomedia for their Head desire to be heard at Rome by Pope Julius in Council concerning their proceedings against Athanasius Here shall I believe as some learned men conjecture that Pope Julius â—s meerly an Arbitratoâ— named by one part y whom the other could not refuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot considering that their hope being to winne themselves credit by his sentence I must needs think that they addresse themselves to him by whose sentence they might hope to draw the greatest prejudice on their own side It cannot be denyed indeed that whereas in a case of that moment the last resort is necessarily to the whole Church whither in council or by reference by referring themselves they brought upon their cause that prejudice which necessarily lights upon all those that renounce the award of the Arbitrators whom they have referred themselves to in case they stand not to the sencentence But though they had not been chargeable with this had they not referred themselves yet must they needs have been judged by the Bishop of Rome among the rest of the Church and in the first place and his sentence must needs weigh more towards the sentence of the whole Church then the sentence of any other Arbitrator could have done For let me ask in the mean time is this an appeal to Pope Julius or to him and his Council let the sequeâ—e judge For he that condemns the Arians for not appearing at the Council which they had occasioned he that condemns the Council of Antiochia at the dedication of the golden Church presently after where they were present for revereing the Creed of Nicaea and condemning S. Athanasius notwithstanding the sentence of Julius and his Council necessarily shows us that they were not quite out of their wits to bestow so much pains for procuring a decree at the Conncil of Antiochia that must have been void ipso facto because the mater had been sentenced at Rome that is in the last resort afore Therefore I coneive Julius had right to complain that they took upon them to regulate the Churches without him nor can I much blame Socrates or Sâ—zomenus in justifying his complaint Because Athanasius his cause as well as the Creed of Nicaea concerned the whole Church And for them to condemn him whom Julius and his Council held at the instance of the Arians had justified was to make a breach in the Church though at present we say nothing of the Faith Neither had they reason to alledge the good they had done the Church of Rome by their compliance in the cause of Novatianus or to expect the like from Julius in a cause of
the like moment because of the sentence of the Nicenâ— Council already past in the main ground of the cause and because of the sentence of the Synod of Rome past in the cause Now when this difference comes afterwards to be tried by a General Council at Sardica shall this trial inferre the infinite Power of the Pope or the regular Power of a General Council For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both Emperours Constantius and Constans out of the whole Empire When the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Philippopolis the whole Power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the success sufficiently showeth that it did not so prevail For many a Council might then have been spared The soveraign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whither for the West which it represented or for the whole which it had right to conclude not having caused the breach shall I conceive to be forged because they are so aspersed having been acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionysius Exigâ—us added by the Eastern Church to their Canon Law Or shall I not ask what pretense there could be to settle appeals from other parts to Rome rather then from Rome to other parts had not a pre-eminence of Power and not onely a precedence of rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome But though I think my self bound to acknowledge that such Canons were made by the Council at Sardica yet not that they took effect by the act of it The Canons of Councils had not effect as I said afore till received The troubles that succeeded might well hinder the admitting of them into practice And that this exception is not for nothing I appeal to all that shall but consider that the Canons of the Council of Antiochia which the Eastern Bishops at Sardica stood for made part of the Code of the whole Church which the Council of Chalcedon owned The Canon of Sardica being no part of it till after times And this is the point upon which the dispute between the Pope and the Churches of Africk about appeals most depends The case that brought it to issue was the case of Apiarius a Priest onely that appealed to Rome The Popes Legates pretended that appeals to Rome were settled by the Council of Nicaea The Churches of Africk finding no such Canon of Nicaea in their records desire that recourse might be had to Alexandria and Constantinople for the true Copies The true Copies import no such thing but it is alleged and it is reason it should be alleged that the appeals of Bishops are setled by the Canons of the Council of Sardica the very terms whereof are couched in the instructions to the Council of Africk The Council of Sardica was not the Council of Nicaea but the acts of it were done by those who pretended to maâ—ntain it Whither it were justly done or imported an intent of imposture to challenge the authority of the Canons of Nicaea for the Canons of it I dispute not But had the case in question been the case of a Bishop as it was onely the case of a Priest what could the Churches of Africk have alledged why they should not be tyed by the Canons of Sardica who acknowledged themselves tyed by the Canons of Nicaea For there was onely the Bishop of Carthage present at the Council of Nicaea but there was six and thirty Africane Bishops at the Council of Sardica enow to represent all the Diocese of Africk and to tie those whom they represented What could they alledge but the inexecution of the Council of Sardica Or what greater evidence could they alledge for the inexecution of it then that there was no Copy of any such Canon in the records of all their Churches Or how could the Pope desire a fairer pretense for the execution of it for the future then the concurrence of the Africanâ— Churches by so many Bishops For though the Council of Sardica is quoted in that which is called the VI Council of Carthage yet the whole issue of the businesse was onely whither they were Nicâ—ne Canons that were alleged or not and when it appeared that they were not the dispute was at an end and the Africane Synode by the leter extant in the Africane Code desires the Pope to stand to terms of the Nicene Canons Therefore it is clearly a fault in the Copy that the Council of Sardica is named which could not be pleaded because all knew that it was not in force as the Council of Nicaea was in the Churches of Africk So that the act of the Council of Sardica necessarily presupposeth that the Church of Rome was effectually acknowledged the prime Church of the West and by consequence of all Churches because it setleth the right of appeals upon it before other Churches in certain causes though it appear not what effect it took unlesse you allow the conjecture which I have to propose Within a few years after this contest there appears a standing Commission of the Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their standing Lieutenants in Illyricum mentioned in the leter of Pope Leo to Anastasins of Thessalonica as derived from their predecessors Had the Bishop of Rome been no more then the Bishop of Thessalonica how came this to be his Lieutenant rather then on the contrary And truly where those priviledges of the Church of Rome over the Churches of Illyricum began whereby the Popes had made the Bishops of Thessalonica their standing Legates appears not by the records of the Church So that it is as free for me to conjecture that they come from the Council of Sardica as for others to conjecture otherwise For it is not unreasonable to think that it might take effect upon the place where it was made with fuller consent of the Bishops of that Diocese present in greater numbers then strangers though scarce known in Africk after some LXX years But at such time as Rome disputed with Africk about appeals and injoyed regular priviledges in Illyricum can the Church of Milane or any Church of Spain or Gaul or Britaine be thought parallel to it From this time the rescripts of the Popes are extant unforged and directed to divers prime Churches of Gaul and Spain And the Heads of them were added by Dionysius Exiguâ—s about DXXX unto that collection of Canons which what force it had in the Western Church appears in that Cresconius abridging the Canons which the African Church used referrs them to the Heads which he follows both beginning at Syricius Cresconius ending at Gelasius And the Copies of Dionysius his Collection that now are
upon the erecting of Constantinople into the second Head of the Empire For within fifty years the Council of the East being held there makes it the second Church and head Church of Thrace Diocese which the Chalcedon Council extends to the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus exalting it so â—arre above Alexandria and Antiochia as might seem afarr of to call for a kind of subjection at their hands If this be rightfully done what shall hinder the whole Church to dispose of the superiority of Churches when the greatnesse of their Cities makes it appear that the dependence of the Churches of less Cities upon them is for the Unity of the whole in the exercise of true Christianity And what can be said why it should not be right for the East to advance Constantinople to the next to Rome the same reason being visible in it for which Rome had the first place from the beginning It is true whereas Rome was content to take no noâ—ice of the Canon of Constantinople the Legates of Pope Leo present at Chalcedon and inforced either to admit or disclaim it protested against iâ— But upon what ground can he who by being part of the Council concluâ—es himself by the vote of it refuse his concurrence to that which he alone likes not Or to what effect is that disowned which takes place without him who protests against it unless it be to set up a monument of half the Church disowning the infinite power of the Pope the other halfe not pleading it but onely Canonicall pre-eminences by the Council of Nicaea I suppose indeed the Pope had something else to fear For Illyricum being so much nearâ—r Constantinople then Rome there was always pretense of reason to subject it as Asia and Ponâ—us â—o Constantinople to the prejudice of those pre-eminences which Rome injoyed there Especially since Illyricum was surrendred by Valentinian III upon the mariage of his Sister to Theodosius the younger as that learned Gentleman John Marsham hath observed and thenceforth become part of the Eastern Empire For hereupon followed the Law omni Innovatione cessante still extant in the Code requiring the Bishops of Illyricum to give account to Constantinople of all maters that should pass Besides had the Empire continued in force in Italy why might not Constantinople in time have pretended to the first place Rome being no more the prime City and yet still of the Empire And therefore Pope Leo as wiâ—e for the privileges of his Church as stout for the Faith did his own business when hee pleaded the Canon of Nicaea and the second place for Alexandria And whatsoever contests passed afterwards between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople the privileges of Rome in Illâ—ricum continued till the time that Gregory the Second with-drew his City from the obedience of the Empire pretending his Soveraign to be an Heretick for destroying of Images I said afore in the first Book that others relate this otherwise And Anasâ—aâ—iâ—s in the lives of Gregory II and III. owns no more but that they exâ—ommunicated the Emperors which notwithstanding occasioned the Italians to â—all from the Empire But hereupon the Empeâ—oâ— commands not onely Illyricum but Sicily and that part of Italy which conâ—â—nued subject to the Empire to resort to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Constantinople and as in case of such jealousie was necessarily to be obeyed Hereupon Pope Adrian in his Apology for Images to Charles the Great complains that they deprived the Church oâ— Rome of the Diocese together with the patriâ—ony which it held in it when they put down Images and had given no answer from that time And Nicolas I. Epist â— revives the claime Which with the rescripts of the Popes between concerning Illyricum as well as the rest of the West see also the life of Hadriane II in Anastasius and much more that might be added shows that this was the state of the Church till that time During the time that Rome on one side stood upon these terms which Constantinople on the other â—â—de was continually harassed by the Lombards who had no reason to confide in it we see because they were not long after destroyed by it there is no marvail if Milane head of the Lombards and Ravenna head of the Exarchate that is of the Dominion that was governed by the Emperors Lieutenant there resident did by the Secular Power of their Cities set up themselves to contest with the Pope about several privileges of their Churches For alass what can this signifie of competition for the Primacy with Rome if wee compare the respect of Milane or Ravenna with that which Rome hath â—ound among other Churches in the concernments of the whole Therefore I will mention here onely one action more carried through in so high a tune by Gâ—lasius and other active Popes that it is much insisted upon by those who would plead for the Popes infinite Power if they durst because they would not have it regular which is the same for what bounds can that Power have that acknowleges no Rule to limit it It is that troublesom business that â—ell out in Egypt about the Council of Chalcedon when John of Alexandria having fallen under the jealousie of the Emperor and Acacius of Constantinople goes to Rome with Leters from Antiochia to complain of the intruding of Petrus Mongus into his Sea Who being an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon but pretending fair to promote those means by which the Emperor Zeâ—o and Acacius pretended to re-unite Aegypt to the Church having never received that Council was thereupon received into communion by Acacius The Rule of the Church being undispensable whosoever communicated with Hereticks to stand for an Heretick to the Church whatsoever hee believe otherwise This cause having bred a world of trouble for many years the Popes never condescended to be re-united in Communion to the East till it was granted that all the Bishops of Constantinople since Acacius though they had professed the true Faith and some of them suffred for it should be condemned as Hereticks by raising names out of that list in which the godly Bishops were remembred at celebrating the Eucharist Though the reason why they had continued communion with Hereticks was onely for fear of making the breaches of the Church wider and more incurable Here it may seem to have been the Power of the Pope that brought even the second person of the Church to the justice of the Canon so much more evident by how much there was lesse reason to insist upon the rigor of the Canon in comparison to the end to which it was subordinate the unity of the whole Yet to him that reasons aright it will easily appear that it was no duty that either the Emperors or the Bishops of Constantinople owed the Popes that made them submit to the Canon but the obligation they had to the Unity of the Church for the maintenance whereof the Canon was provided And that Zeno taking the
in the visible communion of the same offices of Christianity if it be free for the parts of iâ— to withdraw themselves from the Lawes which have been received by the whole to limit the circumstances of their communion though not the conditions of it I have but one point more to mention before I leave this subject concerning what offices every degree is by Gods Law or by Canon Law able to minister in the Church necessary here to be mentioned where I have showed what persons are inabled to give Law to the Church and to do by consequence those acts wherein the execution of Law consisteth For by the premises the truth of that which I have proposed in the Right of the Church more clearly appears then it could appear there that the offices of Christianity which severall degrees are inabled to minister do argue the interest of those respective degrees in the Government of the Church Ordinations therefore wholly reserved to the Bishop as not to be made without his consent Saving such Ordinations of inferiour Ministers as not much concerning the state of his Church he may by way of delegation referre to his Presbyters or rurall Bishops Excommunications likewise as concerning the beeing of every Christian as a member of the Church As for the assistance concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of each Cathedrall Church in and to the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons I referre my selfe to that which I have said elsewhere Seeing it were a thing ridiculous to require that all the Presbyters of each Diocese should concurre to all such Ordinances As for the ordaining of Bishops the rule is plain that being a part of the Provincial Synode no meere Bishop is to be ordained without the consent of the Synode the Bishop of the Mother City alwayes concurring Though all reason requiring that he who is to govern be taken out of the bosome of those whom he is to govern there is a right and priviledge of nomination due to the Clergy and of approbation or suffrage to the people of the Church For it is a thing most certain that the interest of the People in the Elections of Bishops in the ancient Church which is still more clear in the Election of Presbyters was grounded onely upon the knowledge which they must needs have of persons proposed either to approve them which was called their suffrage or otherwise Not that they had any right to go before their leaders the Clergy in nomination or to oblige the consent of the Synode of the Province Though it is true that many times they did prevent both and prevail and might without inconvenience so do when the eminence of some person was so discernable that their grosser judgements could noâ— mistake in the choice though transgressing their rank in demanding even the worthiest before their turn came The same rule holds in the ordaining of superiour Bishops seeing they have all their Church their People their Clergy and their Synode The difference that S. Austine Breviculo Collationis III. diei observes in the consecrating of the Pope that it is done by â—he Bishop of Ostia not by any Metropolitane is an exception to a rule So was Dionysâ—us ordained in the year CCLIX if we beliâ—ve the acts of S. Laurence And therefore that Pelagius I. was ordained by two Bishops and a Priest of Ostia as his life in Anastasius relateth by the strictness of the Nicâ—ne Canon voids it For how can he have caried the greater part of the Bishops The condescension of the Apostles Canon and consent ex postfacto might make it good and valid by the same reason as afore The state of particular Christians is not of such consequence to the Châ—rch that it should be regularly the businesse of a Synod though for the assistance concurâ—ence and consent of the Clergy of each Church I referre my self to that which I have said elsewhere â—nd which would be too particular to be debated in this abridgement As for the mater of Penance in things that come not to the knowledge of the Church I have no cause to repent me of thâ—t which I have said in the Right of the Church where I have showed that Pâ—nance and Absolution in the inward Court of the Conscience extends as farre as the Communion of the â—ucharist from which Penance excludes and to which Absolution restores That all Priests and none but Pâ—iests receive by their Ordination power of celebrating the Eucharist that is to say of consecrating and communicating the same and that it cannot be done by any other without very great Sacrilege And that for an argument of the Power of the Keys in the hand of every Priest though limitable by the rule and custome of the Church to the inward Court of the conscience That the offices of Preaching and Baptizing â—re regularly communicable to Deacons but in case of necessity even to thoâ—e of the people alwaies by delegation from their Superiors the Bishops In sign whereof neither was it the cusâ—ome that any man should consecrate the Eucharist Preach or Baptize in the Bishops prâ—sâ—nce but himself or by his appointment As for the reading of the Scriptures and the sâ—nging of Psalms in the Church it is so well known to have been the Deacons office in the ancient Church that there were severall ranks of Deacons appointed for those sâ—vâ—ral works Lectores Psâ—lâ—ae which now like those in the Church of Rome help to make the inferiour Orders the rule of the Church being grounded upon undeniable wisdome and the authority of S. Paul forbidding novâ—ces to be promoted that exercise in the inferiour offices of the Clergy might be a condition requisiâ— to advance unto superiour degrees in the Clergy Now for thâ— celebrating and blessing of Mariage by Priests only I must go no further at present because having showed that it is to be allowed by the Church I have not yet showed that it is to be solemnized by the blessing of the Church CHAP. XXI Of the times of God service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of meats and measure of Fasting Of the keeping o four Lords Birthday and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service HAving thus showed first what are the Powers of the Church and then in whose hands they rest and having said before that the determining and limiting of all circumstances for the exercise of those offices of Gods service for the Communion whereof the Church stands and also of thoâ—e qualities which render men capable to communicate in that same is totally reserved to the Church so farr as Gods Law hath not prevented the determination of it We are now to consider the
the enemies of Gods Church as of the members of it I conceive I have named the substance of these prayers the particulars whereof you may see in our English Litanies to be the same that the most ancient Writers of the Church witness to have been used after the exposition of the Scriptures whether they describe the celebration of the Eucharist as doth Justine Martyr or not as Tertullian And from hence I hope to resolve that question which I have proposed in another place and no man yet hath taken in hand to answer Why as well in the Ancient Latine as well as Eastern Liturgies as also by the testimonies of S. Austine and others it appeareth that these Prayers are twice repeated at the Eucharist The reason being this that first those who offered the creatures of which the Eucharist is consecrated and by which offering the assembly of the Church was maintained might testifie that they do it out of devotion to God hoping by so doing to obtain at his mercy not onely their own but the necessities of all other orders and estates by virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross which at present they intend to commemorate and repete Which notwithstanding the elements being consecrated and the Body and Bloud of Christ once sacrificed on the Cross here and now represented they offer to him the same Prayers again presenting him as it were the same sacrifice here and now represented for the motive inducing him to grant the said necessities And therefore have reason to account this service the most eminent service that Christians can offer to God and those prayers the most effectual that they can address unto him as being proper to that Christianity in virtue whereof they hope to obtain their prayers and of nothing besides That which remains of this point is onely the consideration of those prayers which are made at those assemblies of the Church which pretend not to celebrate the Eucharist how they may appear to be prescribed by Christianity Where I shall need to say nothing of such Prayers as are to be made by Christian assemblies for the necessities of all Orders and Estates whether within or without the Church because I have already spoken of them when they are made upon occasion of celebrating the Eucharist The difference between that occasion and other occasions which the Church may have to frequent the same Prayers when the Eucharist is not celebrated inferring no difference in that which is prescribed to the Church or by the Church either in the mater or form of the same As for the Prayers which every assembly maketh for it self concerning the common necessities of all Christians as such which I conceive were first called Collecta because the assembly ended in them and was dismissed with them from gathering the same as the Mass hath the name in Latine Missa from dismissing it as I observed afore I shall need to say as little having showed by what authority all Christians are to be limited in such things as have been left unlimited by our Lord and his Apostles For the necessities of Christians as Christians become determinable if any thing cōcerning them become questionable by the same authority that governeth every Church upon such terms as it ought to govern the same But if any cause appear as many ages since there hath appeared necessity enough why particular Churches should be ruled in those forms by Synods that is by the common authority of more and greater Churches for maintaining unity in the whole which the form of Church Service may be a great means to violate as wee know by lamentable experience it remains that the same means be imployed for maintaining unity in this point which God hath provided for maintaining the same in all cases So that supposing that in process of time whether by direct or by indirect means the Church of Rome hath gained so much ground of the whole Western Church as to conform their Prayers and in a maner the whole Order of divine Service to the patern prescribed by it which I take to have been the case at the Reformation with all the Western Church it cannot be alleged for a sufficient cause of changing that the Church of Rome hath no right to require this conformity by Gods Law But the question must be whether the uniformity introduced by the same be so well or so ill for the prejudice or advancement of Christianity that it shall be requisite for the interest thereof to proceed to a change without the consent of the Church Which if it be true then whatsoever hath been objected to the Church of England upon this Title as agreeable to the form used by the Church of Rome not as disagreeable to Christianity is to be damned as ignorantly and maliciously objected for to make division in the Church without cause These same reasons will serve to resolve how necessary it is that those Prayers wherewith the rest of Ecclesiastical Offices Baptism Confirmation Penance the Visitation of the Sick and Mariages are celebrated be of a certain form and prescribed by the authority of the Church It were a thing strangely unreasonable for him that hath considered that which I have said in the second book how our Christianity and salvation is concerned in the Sacrament of Baptism and how much the disputes of Religion that divide the Western Church depend upon the knowledg of it to imagine that all those who must be admitted by the Church to the ministring of it can be able to express the true intent of it in such form of words as may be without offense and tend to the edification of Gods people in a thing so nearly concerning their Christianity Rather it may justly be questioned whether they that take upon them to baptize and consecrate the Eucharist not grounding themselves upon the authority of the Church supposing the Faith of the Church expressed in such a form as the Church prescribeth but their own sense concerning the ground and intent of those Sacraments Do any thing or nothing That is whether they do indeed minister the Sacrament of Baptism necessary to the salvation of all Christians or onely profane the Ordinance of God by professing an intention of doing that which is not indeed that Sacrament under pretense of celebrating it Whether they do indeed consecrate the elements to become sacramentally the Body and Bloud of Christ and so communicate the same to those which receive or onely profane those holy mysteries of Christianity and involve his people in the same guilt by pretending to celebrate so holy an Office and in effect doing nothing as not knowing what ought to be done nor submitting to those that do A consideration very necessary in regard of those who forsake the Baptism which they received in their infancy in the Church of England to be baptized again by new Dippers For it is true the Church hath admitted the Baptism of Hereticks for good but not of all
Hereticks Of those whose Baptism S. Cyprian excepts against Epist ad Jubaianum it is manifest that the Church voiding the baptism of the Samosatenians by the Canon of Nicaea the baptism of other Hereticks by the Canons of Arles and Laodicea must needs make void the baptisms of the greatest part being evidently further removed from the truth which Christianity professeth than those whose baptism the said Canons disallow And though it is admitted according to the dictates of the School that these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost contain a sufficient form of this Sacrament Yet that holdeth upon supposition that they who use it do admit the true sense of this word I baptize intending thereby to make him a Christian that is to oblige him to the profession of Christianity whom they baptize Which what reason can any man have to presume of in behalf of those who renounce their baptism once received in the Church of England to be baptized again For all reason of charitable presumptions ceaseth in respect of those who root up the ground thereof by Schism and by departing from the Unity of the Church And besides that wee do not see them declare any profession at all according to which they oblige themselves either to believe or live which is reason enough to oblige others not to take them for Christians not demanding to be taken for Christians by professing themselves Christians wee see the world over-spread with the vermine of the Enthusiasts who accepting of the Scriptures for Gods word upon a perswasion of the dictate of Gods Spirit not supposing the reason for which they are Christians do consequently believe as much in the dictates of the same that are not grounded upon the Word of God as upon those that are So that the imbracing of the Scriptures makes them no more Christians than Mahomets acknowledging Moses and Christ in the Alcoran makes him a Christian For whosoever is perswaded that hee hath the Spirit of God not supposing that it is given him in consideration that hee professeth Christianity supposing therefore the truth thereof in order of reason before hee receive the Spirit may as well as Mahomet in the Alcoran frame both the Old and New Testament to whatsoever sense his imagination which hee takes for Gods Spirit shall dictate This reason why it is necessary to follow the forms which the Church prescribes is more constraining in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist as more nearly concerning the Christianity and salvation of Christians But yet it takes place also in the rest of those Offices whereby the Church pretends to conduct particular Christians in the way to life everlasting Hee that supposes that which I have proved how necessary it is that every sheep of the flock should acknowledg the common Pastor of his Church that the Pastor should acknowledg his flock upon notice of that Christianity which every one of them in particular professeth though hee may acknowledg that originally there is no cause why every Bishop should not prescribe himself the form of it in his own Church yet supposing that experience hath made it appear requisite for the preservation of Unity by Uniformity that the same form should be used must needs finde it requisite that it be prescribed by a Synod greater or less At such time as publick Penance was practiced in the Church when the Penitents were dismissed before the Eucharist with the Blessing and Prayers of the Church can it seem reasonable to any man that any Prayers should be used in celebrating an action of that consequence but those which the like authority prescribeth So much the more if it be found requisite that the practice of private Penance and of the inner Court of the Conscience be maintained in the Church For how should it be fit that every Priest that is trusted with the Power of the Keyes in this Court should exercice it in that form which his private fansy shall dictate Of Ordinations I say the same as of Confirmations Of the Visitation of the Sick and of Mariage as of Penance Onely considering that it is not likely that the reason whereupon the celebration of Mariage is an Office of the Church deriving from those limitations which the precept of our Lord hath fastned upon the Mariage of Christians should be so well understood by all that are to solemnize Matrimony as to do their Office both so as the validity of the contract and so as the performance of that Office which the parties undertake doth require In fine having showed that the Service of God upon the Regular Hours of the day is a Custom both grounded upon the Scripture and tending to the maintenance and advancement of Christian Piety It remains that I say that the form and measure of that devotion which all estates are to offer to God at those hours cannot otherwise be limited to the edification of all than by the determination of the Church They that please themselves with that monstrous imagination that no Christian is to be taught what or how to pray till hee finde himself inabled by the Spirit of God moving him to pray will easily finde that they can never induce the greater part of Christians to think themselves capable of discharging themselves to God in so high an Office as the sense of their Christianity requires They that observe the performance of those who take it upon them shall finde them sacrifice to God that which his Law forbiddeth the mater of their Prayers not consisting with our common Christianity For of a truth it is utterly unreasonable to imagine that God should grant inspirations of the Holy Ghost for such purposes as our common Christianity furnisheth And therefore the consequences of so false a presumption must be either ridiculous or pernicious Now if any man say that hee admits not the premises upon which I inferr these consequences it remaines that the dispute rest upon those premises and come not to these consequences Onely let him take notice that I have showed him the true consequences of my own premises which hee must reprove as inconsistent with Christianity if hee take upon him to blame the premises for any fault that hee findeth with their true consequences And to say truth as the substance and mater of Christianity is concerned in all these Offices though in some more in some less and by consequence in the form of celebrating them So the Unity of the Church is generally concerned in the form of celebrating them all in as much as any difference insisted upon as necessary and not so admitted by others is in point of fact a just occasion of division in the Church And therefore all little disputes of these particulars necessarily resort to the general Whether God hath commanded the Unity of the Church in the external communion of the members thereof or not Which having concluded by the premises I conceive I have founded
a prejudice peremptorily over-ruling all the pety exceptions that our time hath produced to dissolve this Unity which ought to have been preferred before them had they been just and true as none of them proveth CHAP. XXIV The Service of God to be prescribed in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kindes commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse I Would now make one Controversie more how much soever I pretend to abate Controversies than hitherto hath been disputed between the Reformation and the Church of Rome because though wee hear not of it in our books of Controversies yet in deed and in practice it is the most visible difference between the exercice of Religion in the two professions that you can name For what is it that men go to Church for but to hear a Sermon on one side and to hear a Mass on the other side And yet among so many books of Controversies who hath disputed whether a man is rather to go to Church to hear a Sermon or not to hear a Mass but to receive the Eucharist This is the reason indeed why I dispute not this Controversie because the Mass should be the Eucharist but by abuses crept in by length of time is become something else untill I can state the question upon such terms as may make the reason of Reformation visible Whether the celebration of the Eucharist is to be done in a Language which the people for the most part understand not in Latine as the Mass supposing the most part understand it not is first to be setled before wee inquire what it is that Christians chiefly assemble themselves for Though the question concerns not the Eucharist any more than the other offices of Gods publick Service onely as the Eucharist if it prove the principal of them is principally concerned in it I am then to confesse in the beginning that those of the Church of Rome have a strong and weighty objection against mee why they ought not to give way that the Service of the Church though in a form preseribed by the Church as I require should be celebrated in the Vulgar Languages which every people understand The objection is drawn from that which wee have seen come to pass For the Service of the Church the form and terms of it being submitted to the construction of every one because in English hath given occasion to people utterly unable to judg either how agreeable maters excepted against are to Christianity or how necessary the form to the preservation of unity in the Church first to desire a change then to seek it in a way of fact though by dissolving the Unity of this Church For hee that maintains as I do that whatsoever defects the form established may have are not of waight to perswade a change in case of danger to Unity And secondly that those who have attempted the change have not had either the lot or the skill to light upon the true defects of it but to change for the worse in all things considerable must needs affirm that otherwise they could never have had the means to possess mens fansies with those appearances of reason for it which have made them think themselves wise enough to undertake so great a change And truly there is nothing so dangerous to Christianity as a superficial skill in the Scriptures and maters of the Church Which may move them that are puffed up with it to attempt that for the best which it cannot inable them for to see that so it is indeed Whereas they who hold no opinion in maters above their capacity because concerning the state of the whole are at better leisure to seek their salvation by making their benefit of the order provided Seeing then it cannot be denied that the benefit of having the Service of God prescribed by the Church in our Vulgar English hath occasioned so great a mischief as the destruction of it it seems the Church of Rome hath reason to refuse children edge tools to cut themselves with in not giving way to the publick Service of God in the Vulgar Languages Unless it could be maintained that no form ought to be prescribed which is all one as to say that there ought to be no Church in as much as there can be no Unity in the Faith of Christ and the Service of God according to the same otherwise Now that you may judg what effect this objection ought to have wee must remember S. Pauls dispute upon another occasion indeed but from the same grounds and reasons which are to be alleged for the edification of the Church in our case God had stirred up many Prophets in the Church of Corinth together with those who celebrated the mysteries of Christianity in unknown Languages and others that could interpret the same in the Vulgar partly out of an intent to manifest to the Gentiles and Jews his own presence in his Church including and presupposing the truth of Christianity but partly also for the instruction of the people novices in Christianity for a great part in the truth of it and for the celebration of those Offices wherewith hee is to be served by his Church It came to pass that divers puffed up with the conceit of Gods using them to demonstrate his presence among his people took upon them to bring forth those things which the Spirit of God moved them to speak in unknown Languages at the publick assemblies of the Church Who might indeed admire the work of God but could neither improve their knowledg in his truth nor exercice their devotion in his praises or those prayers to him which were uttered in an unknown Language This is that which the Apostle disputeth against throughout the fourteenth Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians making express mention of Prayers Blessings which I have showed to be the consecration of the Eucharist and Psalms ver 14-17-26 and concluding v. 27 28. that no man speak any thing in the Church though it be that doctrine those prayers or praises of God which his own Spirit suggesteth unless there be some body present that can interpret Which what case can there fall out for the Church which it reacheth not For you see S. Paul excludeth out of the Church even the dictates of Gods Spirit evidencing his presence in the Church by miraculous operations unless they may be interpreted for the edification and direction of the Church What can hee then admit for the Service of God in the name of his Church or for the instruction thereof which it can neither be instructed by nor offer unto him for his service Nay what cause can there be why the Church should meet according to S. Paul if there be nothing done that is understood What
vulgarly understood and that for the communion as well as for the sacrifice it must further be provided that this Communion be complete in both kinds in which the Sacrament is celebrated not barring the people of the Cup as it is the custome in the Church of Rome to do And truly there is not so much marvell at any thing in difference as there is why it hath been thought fit to make this the cause of so great a breach For the precept running in those terms which take hold of them who are obliged by it that is of the whole Church consisting of Clergy and people both alike because I have showed that do this in remembrance of me concerns the whole Church by the prayers whereof it is consecrated How will it be possible to make any humane understanding capable to comprehend that when our Lord saith take eat drinke do this the people shall stand charged onely with part of it Indeed had there been any limitation of the Law-givers intent expressed either by way of precept as this lies or by the practice of the Church originally under the Apostles and generally throughout Christendom there might have been pretense for dispute And it must not be denied that there have been those that have attempted to show that the Apostles so used it even in the Scriptures But by such means as if they meant not indeed to prove it for a truth but to show how willingly they would gratifie those who would be glad to see it proved whether true or false And do therefore sort to no other effect then to make it appear that their desire to prove it out of the Scripture was farr greater then the Scripture gave them cause to cherish For were breaking of bread put a thousand times in the Scripture for celebrating the Eucharist as sometimes it is put Act. II. 42. 45. XX. 7. at least for those Suppers at which the Eucharist was celebrated what would this avail unlesse we could be perswaded that as oft as breaking of bread is put for eating there we are to understand that there was no drink Or unlesse we could understand by one and the same term of breaking bread that all Priests had drink as well as bread but the Lay people none Therefore whatsoever advantage it may be in regard it is certain that the greatest part of the world will never be wise to make a noise with any plea though never so unprobable rather then be thought to have nothing to say men of judgement and conscience must needs take it for a confession that there is no ground for it in the Scriptures to see things alleged so farr from all appearance of truth As for the practice of the Catholick Church I may very well remit all that desire to inform and not to scandalize themselves to those things which Cassander hath which much learning collected as sufficient to make it appear if any thing that men are unwilling to see can be made to appear that as to this day there is no such custom in the Eastern Church so in the Western Church it is not many ages since it can be called a custom And that by so visible degrees introduced as may be an undeniable instance to make evidence that corruption may creep into the Laws and customs of the Church though by those degrees which are not alwayes visible Indeed it is alleged that there are some natures found in the world that can by no means indure the taste of wine which therefore some men call abstemious without casting it back again â—nd induring as great pangs as men are seen to indure that are forced or couâ—ened to eat things which they hate So that to force such natures to receive the Sacrament in both kinds were to destroy the reverence due to it both in them who receive it and in them that shall see it used with no more reverence It is alleged again That Christianity goes further than wine That is That some Christian Nations dwell in Countries so untemperately cold that wine will not keep in their Countries but changes as soon as it comes Now as no reason appeareth why the Sacrament should not be celebrated for the use of those people who cannot receive it in both kinds Neither can any reason appear why other people receiving it in one kinde should not receive the same benefit by it which they do Last of all it is alleged that in the primitive Church it was many times received by the people in one kinde upon several occasions For in regard that Christians could not alwayes be prâ—sent at the celebrating therâ—oâ— when there was not such means as have since been provided especially those who were maried to unbelievers it was a custom to send them the Communion who were known to joyn with the devotion of the Church though hindred to joyn therewith in bodily presence as wee learn by Justiâ—e Martyrs second Apology And because in the quality of wine a litle quantity is not to be preserved as preserve it they did besides other reasons to take it Fasting therefore it was sent onely in the other kinde as wee finde by Tertullian writing to his wife Again if a man that was under Penance fell in danger of departing this life before hee was reconciled to the Church by receiving the Communion again which by this one instance wee may see how much the primitive Christians abominated to do As the Law of the Church was that they should not be refused the Communion in that case So the custom was for the same reason to send it them onely in one kinde as appeareth by an eminent example related from Dionysius of Alexandria by Eusebius Hist Eccles VI. 44. But these instances if they be looked into will appear to be of the same consequence as if it should be alleged to a Jew that if two Jews should turn back to back and go one of them East the other West till they came to meet again howsoever this may be possible to be done seeing when they meet again if the one count Saturday the other must needs count Sunday as appears evidently by the reason of the Sphere and the dayly motion of the Sun round the earth therefore they cannot both keep the Sabbath upon the day which the Law appoints therefore it is in the power of the Synagogue to appoint that no Sabbath be kept Or because during the forty years travail of the Israelites through the Wilderness to the Land of Promise their children were not circumcised by reason that they knew not when they should be summoned to remove by the moving of the cloud that was over the Tabernacle which they were alwayes to be ready to do Therefore it was in the power of the Synagogue to dispense with the circumcision of male children under the Law of Moses Positive precepts they are all that of circumcision and that of the Sabbath as well as this of the Eucharist Neither can it
be said that those ever concerned the salvation of a Jew more nearly than this earnest of our common salvation concerns that of a Christian And why the Synagogue should not have more power in those precepts than the Church in this nothing can be said But to the particulars Suppose some fansies may be possest with such an aversness to wine that no use of reason at years of discretion when they come to the Eucharist will prevail to admit that kinde without such alteration in them as the reverence due unto it can stand with for I have seen the case of one that never had tasted wine in all his life and yet by honest endeavors when hee first came to the Eucharist receives it in both kindes without any maner of offense doth it therefore fall under the power of the Church to prohibite it all people because there may fall a case wherein it shall be necessâ—ry to dispense with some though not comprehended in the case For there is nothing but the meer necessity of giving order in cases not expressed by the Law that gives the Church power to take order in such cases Therefore without those caâ—â—â— it hath none And so in the case of those Nations where wine will not keep yet the people are Christians For neither was the reason otherwise supposing that the ancients did reserve the Eucharist in one kinde onely for the absent or for the case of sudden death to those that were under Penance For this reservation was but from Communion to Communion which in those dayes was so frequent that he who caried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home drinking the Bloud at present might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds Neither can that sacramental change which the consecration works in the elements be limited to the instant of the assembly though it take effect only in order to that CoÌ„munion unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth And so farr as I can understand the condition of the Church at that time in these cases there may have been as just cause to give it then in one kind in these cases as now to the abstemious or to those Nations where wine will not keep But shall this necessity be a colour for a Power in the Church to take away the birth-right of Christian people to that which their own prayers consecrate If the Power of the Church be infinite this colour need not If it he onely regular as I have showed all along that it is there can be no stronger rule than that of common reason which forbids servants to make bold with their Masters ordinances where no other act of his obliges For all necessity is the work of providence and excuses or if you will justifies where it constrains not where it constrains not The Greek Church hath an ancient custom not to consecrate the Eucharist in Leâ—t but upon Sabbaths and Lords days on the other five dayes of the week to communicate of that which was consecrated upon those dayes by the Council of Laodicea Can. XLIX And this Communion is prescribed by the Council in Trullo Can. LII But that they held the Communion to be completed by dipping the elements consecrated afore in wine with the Lords Prayer it will to him that shall peruse that which is found in Cassanders works pag. 1020 1027. Whereby you shall perceive also that the same was formerly done in the Church of Rome on good Friday on which days the same course was and is observed and that with an intent to consecrate it as the Eucharist is consecrated though at this day it is not so believed in the Church of Rome For the custom of the Church determining the intent of those Prayers whereby the Eucharist is consecrated to the elements in which it is communicated Because wine presently consecrated being in so small a quantity was not fit to be kept there is no reason why the Communion should not be complete Though how fit this custom is I dispute not But there is a new device of Concomitance just as old as the with-holding of the Cup from the people that you may be sure it would never have been pleaded but to maintain it for in the Greek Church that allows both kinds who ever heard of it It is said that the bloud in the body accompanieth the flesh neither can the Body of Christ as it is or as it was upon the Cross be eaten without the Bloud Seeing then that hee who receiveth the body must needs receive the bloud also what wrong is it for the people to be denied that which they have which they have received already And now you see to what purpose Trâ—nâ—â—â—sâ—â—ntiation serves To make it appear that our Lord instituted this Sacrament in both elements to no purpose seeing as much must needs be received in onâ—â—inâ—â—â— as in both And yet by your favor even Transubstantiation distinguisâ—â—th between the being of the flesh of Christ naturally in the body of Christ upon the Cross for so it was necessarily accompanied with the bloud of Christ not yet issued from it and between the flesh of Christ being sacramentally in the element consecrated into it And thus it cannot be otherwise accompanied with the bloud than because hee that consecrates is commanded to consecrate another kinde into the bloud And so hee that receives the body being commanded as much to receive the bloud the body may be said to be accompanied with the bloud But otherwise if hee receive not the bloud then is it not accompanied with the bloud as it ought to be For seeing the command is to receive as well as to consecrate several elements into the body and bloud of Christ it is manifest that the body and bloud of Christ are received as they are consecrated apart Under one element the body under another the bloud Indeed upon another ground which the Church of Rome will have no cause to own I do conceive it may well be said that the body is accompanied with the bloud to them that receive the Sacrament in one kinde in case it may or must be thought that they who in the Church of Rome thirst after the Eucharist in both kindes do receive the whole Grace of the Sacrament by the one kinde through the mercy of God giving more than hee promiseth in consideration that they come not short of the condition required by their own will or default Which is necessarily to be believed by all that believe the Church of Rome to remain a Church though corrupt and that salvation is to be had in it and by it Though whether this be so or not I say nothing here because it is the last point to be resolved out of the resolution of all that goes afore For since it is no Church unless the Grace of this Sacrament be convayed by the Sacrament ministred as the Church ministreth the same And seeing the precept of receiving the Eucharist
thinne That the Ministers of the Church should performe the service thereof in their ordinary aparrel when they ministred it in grottes and caves to a few I marvaile not but count it reasonable That when all assemble wheat and chaffe good fish and bad all should be summoned to that apprehension of the work in hand which our common Christianity inforceth by the habit in which it is ministred it seemeth to me very unreasonable that any man should marvaile Imposition of hands is necessarily an act of authority Booz may say to the reapers The Lord be with you And they answer him The Lord blesse thee Ruth IV. 4. they may blesse him as well as he them And as the Priest saith to the people the Lord be with you so may they to him and with thy Spirit where there is nothing but matter of common charity in band But if Abraham pay Melchisedeck Tithes acknowledging his superiority and Melchisedeck thereupon blesse Abraham then the saying of the Apostle Heb. VII 7. without question the lesse is blessed by the better takes place Of this kinde is Jacobs blessing his Nephews by laying his hands on their heads Moses his blessing of Joshua the Priests blessing of the people The Israelites laying hands on the Levites Numb VIII 10. seems rather to signify the charging of the sinnes of the Congregation upon them that by them they might be expiated according to the Law But our Lord layes hands on the little children whom he blesses and his Apostles lay hands on them whom they cure Mark XVI 18. as Naaman thought that Elizeus would have laid hands on him praying for him So our Lord lifts up his hands over his disciples to blesse them because he could not lay hands on them all The Apostles laying hands on the seven Acts VI. 6. and the imposing of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. IV. 14. signifieth the authority that inchargeth them with their office And it is strange that any man pretending learning can attribute the ordinations made by Paul and Barnabas Acts XIV 23. to the votes of the people signified by holding up their hands The act of constituting them being expresly ascribed to Paul and Barnabas And therefore by imposition of their hands not by holding up the peoples hands Imposition of hands therefore as it is used by the Church succeeding the Apostles in that use signifieth that authority which the Church blesseth or prayeth for blessing in behalf of those whom she presumeth to be qualified for the blessing by so blessing which she prays for at Gods hands I am not to forget the signe of the Crosse though a ceremony which I cannot say the Church hath either precept or precedent for in the Scripture having prescribed that there is no presumption that it cometh not from the Apostles because no mention of it in Scripture Justine the Martyr mentioning the use of it Tertulliane and Saint Basil testifying that it was common to all Christians all times all parts of the Church whereof there is remembrance using it Chuse whether you will have Saint Paul when he saith In whom ye were sealed by the holy spirit of promise Ephes I. 13. and againe by whom ye are sealed to the day of redemption Ephes IV. 30. to intimate that the holy Ghost was given by Baptisme which was solemnized by signing with the signe of the Crosse Or that the Church took occasion upon those words to appoint that Ceremony to be used in baptizing it will neverthelesse remaine grounded that the use of it on all occasions in all times over all parts of the Church is to be ascribed to the Apostles And certainly there are many occasions for a Christian to have recourse to God for his grace upon protestation of his Christianity which is the condition upon which all grace of God becomes due when there is neither time nor opportunity to recollect his minde unto a formall addresse by praying to God All which this ceremony fitly signifieth What then if it be used by those who bethinke not themselves at all of that Christianity by which alone we may expect any benefit of Christs Crosse Who may seem to hold their Christianity needlesse promising themselves the benefit of it by the opus operatum of making a signe of the Crosse Does this hinder any man to use it as it ought to be used does it prejudice him that so uses it I will not say that there cannot nor did not consist any Reformation in laying this ceremony aside But I will say as of Prayers for the dead We know well enough whom there was a desire to content when this ceremony in the Eucharist was laid aside under Queen Elizabeth having been prescribed under Edward VI. Which seeing it hath not served the turne but that the unity of the Church is dissolved and so much more demanded of them that would be thought Reformed if yet any man man can say what is demanded I think my self obliged to maintaine in this point as in all the rest That the Reformation of the Church consists not in abolishing but in renewing and restoring the orders of the Catholick Church and the right intent of the same He that will take the paines to adde hereto that which I have said in the place quoted afore shall comprehend the reasons upon which I remaine satisfied in this whole point seeing there is no cause why I should either recede from any part of it or repeate it here againe That which remaineth for this place is the consideration of the nature and number of the Sacraments which being essentially ceremonies of Gods service the right resolution of the controversy concerning it must needs consist in distinguishing the grounds upon which and the intents to which they are instituted the difference whereof must make some properly Sacraments the rest either no Sacraments at all or in a severall sense and so to a severall purpose And truly of all the Controversies which the Reformation hath occasioned I see not lesse reason for either side to stand upon their terms then in this which stands upon the term of a Sacrament being not found in the Scriptures attributed either to seven or to two For being taken up by the Church that is to say by those Writers whom the Church alloweth and honoureth what reason can deny the Church liberty to attribute it to any thing which the power given the Church inableth it to appoint and to use for the obtaining of Gods blessing upon Christians Why should not any action appointed by the Church to obtaine Gods sanctifying grace by virtue of any promise which the Gospel containeth be counted a Sacrament At least supposing it to consist in a ceremony fit to signify the blessing which it pretendeth to procure For it is manifest that Baptisme also and the Eucharist are ceremonies signifying visibly that invisible grace wherewith God sanctifieth Christians But there will be therefore no consequence that Baptisme and the Eucharist should
be counted Sacraments for the same reason and in the same nature and kind for which any thing else is or can be counted a Sacrament No not though they may all in their proper sense be truly called Sacraments of the Church because the dispensing of them all is trusted with the Church For Baptisme by the premises enters a man into the Covenant of Grace as the visible solemnity whereby it is contracted with the Church in behalfe of God which unlesse in case of peremptory necessity cannot be invisibly contracted So it intitleth to all the promises which the Gospel pretendeth And so also doth the Eucharist being the visible ceremony which God hath appointed for the renewing of it and of our profession to stand in it and to expect the promises which the Gospel pretendeth upon supposition of the condition which it requireth not otherwise And truly the flesh and bloud of Christ mystically received by our bodies necessarily importeth his spirit received by our soules supposing them qualified as the Gospel requireth and in and by the Spirit whatsoever is requisite to inable a Christian to performe his race here or to assure him of his reward in the world to come And yet the necessity thereof not so undispensable but that supposing a man cannot obtaine the communion thereof from the Church but by violating that Christianity which it sealeth neither can a man obtaine it by the Sacrament nor without the Sacrament need he faile of it that is standing to his Christianity as well in all other things as in not transgressing his Christianity for communion in the Eucharist with the Church And this is the case of those which are unjustly excommunicate Seeing in matters indifferent he that yeilds not to the Church that is to them who have the just power to conclude the Church when they judge it for the common good for him to do that which otherwise he is not obliged to do must needs seem justly excommunicable So these two Sacraments have the promise of grace absolutely so called that is of all the grace which the Gospel promiseth which it is to be acknowledged and maintained that no other of those actions that are or may be called Sacraments of the Church doth or can doe upon the like terms as they doe For of a truth it is granted that both these Sacraments are actions and consist in the action whereby they are either prepared or used though with so much difference between the two For Baptisme is of necessity an action that passes with the doing of it Whereas in the Eucharist there is one thing done in the preparing another in the using of it insomuch that the effect of consecrating it which I suppose here to be signified in the Scriptures as well as the most ancient of the Fathers by the name of Eucharistia or Thanksgiving remaines upon the thing consecrated so that the bread and the wine over which God was praised and thanked are metonymically called the Eucharist And yet in regard the consecration in reason tends to the use of receiving it and that the Church is not trusted or inabled to do it with effect but to that intent the totall of both is necessarily understood by the name of that Sacrament For supposing the ancient Church might have cause to allow the use of receiving this Sacrament to them who were not present in body though in spirit at the celebrating of it which I for my part in point of charity find my self bound to suppose even when I am not able to alledge any reason why my self would have done the same in the same case So long as by reasonable construction which the practice of the Church alloweth or groundeth the consecration tendeth to the use of receiving it is reasonably called the Sacrament or the Eucharist in order to that use If it be consecrated to any other intent either expressed or inforced by construction of reason upon the practise of the Church such practice bordering upon sacriledge in the abuse of the Sacrament the Church hath nothing to do to answer for it Nor is it my meaning that the Sacrament of Baptisme or the Eucharist doth or can consist in the outward action of washing of the body or of praying over the elements and reciting the Institution of our Lord. It is true the very bodily action were able in a great part to interpret the intent of doing it to those who are already Christians and know what Christianity requireth But seeing that can never be enough much lesse allwayes It is necessary that the intent be declared by certain words signifiying it But these words with the bodily action which they interpret will by this discourse concurre to make but one part of the Sacrament which containing the solemnizing of the Covenant of Grace will necessarily containe that which all this signifieth of invisible and spirituall grace conveighed to those who are qualified for it by that which is said and done in virtue of Gods promise He that will speak properly of these two Sacraments must make the matter of them to consist in one of these two parts The form of them being not the signification which is the same in all ceremonies but the promise which tieth to them the whole effect of the Covenant of Grace to which purpose it were well if the world would understand them to be seals of it This createth a vast difference between these two and any of the rest which are called Sacraments Which whether the Councile of Trent sufficiently expresse by providing an Anathema for those who shall say that the seven Sacraments are so equall one to the other that none is more worthy then another Sess VII Can. III. or not let them look to it I dispute not Thus much we see a difference is hereby acknowledged But the difference is vast in this regard that whereas both these Sacraments take effect in consideration of every particular mans Christianity and the promises annexed to that end the rest all of them take effect in consideration of the Communion of the Church and that which it is able to contribute towards the effect of Grace Which necessarily consists in that which the Church is able to contribute toward the effecting of that disposition which qualifieth for it So whereas these two immediately bring forth Gods grace as instruments of his promise by his appointment the rest must obtaine it by the meanes of Gods Church and the blessing annexed to communion with it He that believeth not Gods Church in the nature of a Society grounded upon profession of the true faith and consisting in that communion which separateth it not from the whole may promise himself the benefit of his Baptisme and of the Eucharist whomsoever he communicateth with professing himself a Christiane He who believeth every Church to be a part of the whole Church as he must acknowledge it requisite to the effect of Baptisme and the Eucharist that they be ministred neither
by Hereticks nor Schismaticks So must he attribute the effect of the rest to the foundation of the Church the Prayers whereof God by founding it hath promised to hear being made according to that Christianity which the foundation thereof supposeth Let us consider whether extreme Unction may be or must be counted a Sacrament upon these termes or not for if that what question will remaine of the rest I conceive I have observed that which is very pertinent to the consideration of all the rest in showing that they are the solemnities wherewith some acts of that publick authority is exercised which the Church hath in respect of the members of it Onely in the Unction of the sick I have not found any act of authority distinct from that power of the Keyes whereby in extremity all are admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in hope of Gods mercy acknowledging the debt of that Penance remaining if they survive which must qualify them for it in the the judgement of the Church And the promise of forgiveness of sins annexed to it I have found to suppose that contrition which undertaketh the same in case a man survive Which notwithstanding whosoever acknowledges the Church cannot think the prayers of the Church needlesse in such an exigent But as for the ceremony of anointing with oyle I have found it in the premises to concern the recovery of bodily health by the practice of all ages that are found to have used it Though not pretending miraculous graces of curing diseases extant in the primitive times but onely that confidence which Gods generall promise to the Church groundeth of hearing the prayers thereof even for temporall blessings so farre as the exception to it which Christianity maketh shall allow It was thought fit to lay aside this ceremony at the Reformation least the Church should seem to pretend a promise the effect whereof being temporall and visible could not be made to appear Which might seem a disparagement to our common Christianity But there have not wanted Doctors of the Reformation Bucer by name that have acknowledged nor will any man of a peaceable judgement make question that the ceremony might have been retained at the visitation of the sick Which he that would have the Church lay aside because the Church of Rome useth this ceremony at it he would have the Church be no Church because the Church of Rome is one For as the office of the Church can never be more necessary then in that extremity to procure that disposition qualifying for pardon which then it is not too late to procure So can no ceremony be filter then annointing with oil to signify that health of body which the Church chearfully prayeth for on behalf of them whom she promiseth remission of sinne That health of minde which the present agony so peremptorily requireth Supposing then the constitution of the Church such that the ministery thereof must needs be thought sufficient meanes to procure salvation for the members of it And then supposing the Church so constituted injoyne prayer to be made for the sicke to whose reconcilement the keyes thereof are applied anointing them with oyl to signify that health of body and mind which is prayed for So farre am I from dividing the Church in that regard that I acknowledge it may be very well counted one of the Sacraments of the Church in that case To wit as a ceremony appointed by the Church signifying that health which the Church rightly using the Power which it is trusted with appointeth to be prayed for in that case To prove Marriage to be a Sacrament it is well known how the text of S. Paul is alledged Ephes V. 32. Sacramentum hoc magnum est This is a great mystery but I mean concerning Christ and the Church But Saint Paul saith not that the mariage of Christians is a sacrament but that the mariage of Adam and Eve was a great mystery As indeed it was if the Apostle say true that it figured the marriage of our Lord Christ with his Church and that therefore the woman was taken out of the man as Christians are the bimbs of Christ and therefore wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church to Christ True it is that seing mariage in Paradise was made an inseparable conjunction of one with one with an intent that it should figure the inseparable conjunction between our L. Christ and the congregation of them whom he foreseeth that they shall persevere in that regard the marriage of Christians also being by our Lord reformed to the first institution of Paradise cannot chuse but signify the same though now in being Whereas the marriage of Adam was a mystery for signifying the same to be But supposing all this and not supposing an Order in the Church for the blessing of marriage as a solemnity prescribed by the Church I know not whether there could be cause to reckon marriage among the Sacraments of the Church all the rest which pretend to tha quality being offices of the Church to be performed with some solemnity Whereas supposing something peculiar to the marriage of Christians in regard whereof it is to be celebrated with the solemne Blessing of the Church there is no cause why under the equivocation premised it may not be counted among the Sacraments of the Church For is there any question to be made that Christians submitting themselves to marry according to the Law of Christ with an intent not onely to keep faith to one another according to that which is between Christ and his Church but to breed children for the Church And so submitting unto the Church and those limits wherewith the Church boundeth the exercise of Gods Law for maintaining of unity in the Church may promise themselves the effect of that Blessing which the Church joynes them with Supposing them qualified for the common blessings of Christians and the Church formed by God with a promise of his blessings What doubt can be made that the Blessing shall have effect which the Church joynes them with But what assurance can be had of the effect of that Blessing without it supposing the Church and supposing the blessing of marriage appointed by the Church I have showed the ground whereupon the allowance of mrriage among Christians is necessarily part of the interest of the Church I have showed that in Ordination in Confirmation in Penance as well as in Baptisme and in the Eucharist the Church exerciseth some power and authority which she is trusted with by God The blessing of mariage what is it but the marke of that authority in allowing the mariages of Christians which the Church thereby exerciseth If Ignatius and Tertullian require the consent of the Church to the mariages of Christians it must needes be inferred from thence that this consent was declared by the blessing of the Church as the Power of ordaining and the Power of absolving is exercised with blessing that is praying for
God Grant that there may be question whether it be a just occasion or not certainly supposing it come to a custom in the church presently to do that which is alwaies due to be done you suppose the question determined This is that which I stand upon the matter being such as it is supposing the custom of the church to have determined it it shal be so far from an act of Idolatry that it shal be the duty of a good Christian Therefore not supposing the Church to have determined it though for some occasions whereof more are possible then it is possible for me to imagine it may become offensive and not presently due yet can it never become an act of Idolatry so long as Christianity is that which it is and he that does it professes himselfe a Christian Here then you see I am utterly disobliged to dispute whether or no in the ancient Church Christians were exhorted and incouraged to and really did worship our Lord Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For having concluded my intent that it had not been Idolatry had it been done I might leave the consequence of it to debate But not to balk the freedom which hath caryed me to publish all this I doe believe that it was so practised and done in the ancient church which I maintaine from the beginning to have been the true church of Christ obliging all to conforme to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be don at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Which if it were taken away that it might be done againe and ought not to be of it selfe alone any cause of distance For I doe acknowledge the testimonies that are produced out of S. Ambrose de Spiritu Sancto III. 12. S. Austine in Psalme XCVIII and Epist CXX cap. XXVII S. Chrysostome Homil. XXIIII in 1. ad Corinth Theodoret Dial. II. S. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. in S. Gorgoniam S. Jerom Epist ad Theophilum Epist Alexandriae Origen in diversa loca Evang. Hom. V. Where he teacheth to say at the receiving the sacrament Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roofe Which to say is to do that which I conclude Nor doe I need more to conclude it And what reason can I have not to conclude it Have I supposed the elements which are Gods creatures in which the Sacrament is celebrated to be abolished or any thing else concerning the flesh and bloud of Christ or the presence thereof in the Eucharist in giving a reason why the Church may doe it which the Church did not believe If I have I disclame it as soone as it may appeare to me for such Nay I doe expressely warne all opinions that they imagine not to themselves the Eucharist so meere and simple a signe of the thing fignified that the celebration thereof should not be a competent occasion for the executing of that worship which is alwaies due to our Lord Christ in carnate I confesse it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it selfe justifieth it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible kind nor the invisible Grace of Christs body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise In regard whereof the one going along with the other whatsoever be the distance of their nature both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the worke of God to which he is morally ingaged by the promise which the institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist But I will not therefore warrant that they who maintain the worshipping of the Sacrament of the Eucharist doe not understand the visible kind or as themselves thinke the visible propertyes thereof by that name Which if they shall declare themselves to understand then is the question far otherwise and to be resolved upon the same termes as the question concerning the worshiping of images shall by and by be resolved That though the Sacrament of the Eucharist may be the occasion to determine the circumstance of the worshipping of Christ yet is it selfe no way capable of any worship that may be counted religious because religion injoyneth it Cardinall Bellarmine de Euch. IV. 29. would have it said that the signe is worshipped materially but the body and blood of Christ formally in the Eucharist Which are termes that signifie nothing For it is impossible to distinguish in God the thing that is worshiped from the reason for which it is worshipped so that the thing may be understood without understanding it to be the reason why it is worshipped Therefore the signe in the Eucharist seemes onely to determine why that worship which is alwaies every where due is here now ten dred Indeed when the Councile of Trent pronounceth him anathema that believes not the elements to be abolished and cease to be in it being consecrated I cannot deny that their obliging all to believe that which no man can have that cause to believe for which he belives the Christian faith hath beene a very valuable reason though not the onely reason to move the Church of England to supersede that ceremony hardly in the minds of Christians so bred to it to be parted from it contenting it selfe to injoine the receiving of it kneeling which he that refuseth to do seems not to acknowledge the being of a sacrament requiring the tender of the thing signified by it and with it And I conceive further that the carying of the Sacrament in procession and upon such occasions as signifies no order towards the receiving of it nor any such intent upon supposition whereof the Sacrament is a Sacrament hath added much waight to that reason For if the use of the sacrament were the reason to make the occasion fit the abuse thereof must needs render it unfit But for that which remaines whether those who thinke the body and blood of Christ present instead of the elements which are there no more be Idolators for worshipping the elements which remain present where they think they are not is a question no way to be resolved till it be granted that supposing them present it is no Idolatry For if the fals opinion of their absence make men idolaters then are they not idolaters which have it not Consider then that were the body and blood of Christ so present as to be in stead of the substance of bread and wine the consideration in which any Christian holding what the church of Rome teaches should worship it would be no other then that for which it should be worshipped by
it under the knowledge of his Church And when those that have spent their time in this kind of life out of their experience and knowledge undertake to direct others the way of governing themselves in it when others joyning themselves to them undertake to order their life according to such directions neither hath the Church any thing to do in the matter of them further then to take account that they be according to Christianity nor do the parties enter into any new obligation but that of performing that profession which is become notorious The consequence whereof is this that the profession being â—ransgressed by an act that creates a new state as that of mariage the bond whereof is insoluble the obligation which is violated being to God and not to the Church the Church shall have no power to free him from the obligation contracted whatsoever censure the transgression of his profession may require John Cassians who lived in the Monasteries of Aegypt wherein this exercise seems to have received first that forme with other parts according to their capacities imitated mightily justifies the Apostolicall originall of the profession by the antiquitie of their Monasteries and the Traditions by which they lived received from age to age without expresse beginning But above all the three severall formes of them extant in Aegypt during his time seems to demonstrate by what degrees it came to that height The first of them called in his time Sarabaitae professing no communion with others but at each mans discretion seems to him a defection from the common profession But signifies that at the first the profession did stand without living in comon though it could not stand so long without abuse To avoid which abuse first Convents began then Anchorites left them to live alone in the wildernesse You may see what he writeth De Instit Mâ—n II. 3 5. Collat. XVIII 3-7 The orders of their Convents which he describes as also Saint Basils instructions make the work of their life to be the service of God by prayer and fasting with the praises of God But so that labouring with their hands in some bodily work and living in so much abstinence they were able to contribute the greatest part of their gaine for almes to the poor Though not at their own discretion but at the discretion of their superiours to whose guidance they had once given up themselves How farre this is distant from any form of this profession extant in the West is easie enough to imagine For all this while they remaine meer Laies without all pretense of that superiority over the people in the Church which the Clergy signifieth That superiority which they have one over another standing onely upon that voluntary consent and profession the solemnizing whereof signifieth that it is approved by the Church Nor is there any thing of indowment in all this their profession to give almes of their labours rendring them uncapable of any such But it must not be denied that the Monasteries of the West have been the meanes to preserve that learning which was preserved alive during the time at least the knowledge of the Scriptures and other records of the Church upon which the knowledge of the Scriptures depends And certainly the knowledge of the Scriptures is more dangerous then a sword in a mad mans hand unlesse it be joyned with that humility which onely Christianity teacheth A thing more rare in them that think themselves guilty of learning then pearles or diamonds A thing so difficult for them to attaine that it ought to be counted a sufficient price for all the exercise a man can bestow in this profession all his life long That sobriety of mind that gravity of manners that watchfullnesse over a mans thoughts and passions which is absolutely requisite for the discharge as of all Christians so especially of them that are liable to the temptation of spirituall pride for knowledge in matters of God is a competent reward for all that retirement from the world which this profession can require This being the designe of Monasteries it cannot be denied that the goods which they may be indowed with are consecrated to the service of God as estated upon his Church But not therefore upon the Church of Rome The pretense of allowing the Rule of Monasticall Orders which ought indeed to be approved of by the Church and of reducing them into severall bodies under one Government in severall dominions and the Churches of them a thing no way concerning the foundation of the Church or any right thereof derived from the same hath been the means for the Church of Rome to exempt them from the government of their Ordinaries and to reduce them to an immediate dependence upon it by whose Charter each Order subsisteth But there is no manner of ground in the profession for this nor was it so originally but is come to be so by the swelling of the Regular Power of that See to that height which the pretense of Infallibility speaketh For why should not every Church or every Synode to which any Church belongs and the respective heads of the same be capable of visiting regulating or correcting whatsoever may concerne the common Christianity in bodies of meer Lay people as I have showed all Monaâ—â—eriâ—s or Convents of Monkes originally to be subsisting within the respective Diocesse of every Church Unlesse the case of a Monke falls out to be a cause that concerns the whole Church as that of Pelagius For then there will be no marvaile that it should resort to the same triall that determines the like causes of other Christians And upon these terms though the Church of England hath no Monasteries as not essentiall to the constitution of the Church but advantagious for the maintainance of that retirement from the world in the reasons of our actions wherein our common Christianity consisteth by that visible retirement wherein this profession consisteth For the constitution thereof succeeding that horrible act of abolishing the Monasteries under Henry VIII it is no marvaile if it were difficult to agree in a forme which the Reformation might allow and cherish yet is no son of the Church of England bound to disown the whole Church in maintaining Monasticall life as agreeable with Christianity and expedient to the intent of it They that understand the intent of Monasticall life to be contemplation do not seem to consult with the Primitive custome and practice of it in the Church For when bodily labour was by the Rule to succeed in the intervals of Gods service and as soon as it was done I cannot conceive how a man should imagine a more active life That the activity thereof is exercised not in any businesse tending to advantage a man in this world but to keep him imploied so as to live free to serve God maketh it not the lesse active though not to the ordinary purpose The case is the same supposing that in stead of bodily labour men give
is what course the Law of the Church should take And therefore the profession of that continence which single life requireth grounding a reasonable presumption of eminence in Christianity above those that are marryed there was all the reason in the world why the Church should indeavour to put the governement thereof into such hands by preferring them before others On the other side as all truth in morall and humane maters is liable to many exceptions it cannot be denyed that more abstinence from riot and from riches both more attendance upon the service of God is found some times in those that live marryed then in those that live single In which consideration it may well seem harde to conclude all them that are marryed unserviceable for the Church The moderation therefore of the Easterne Church seemeth to proceed upon a very considerable Ground not excluding marryed persons from a capacity of Holy orders but excluding persons ordayned from any capacity of mariage For those who were promoted to the Clergy being single knowing that they were not allowed mariage what can they pretend why they should hold their estate not performing the condition of it As for the promoting of those who are already maried it is the triall of their conversation in wedlock that may ground a presumption as well for that conscience which their fidelity in dispensing the goods of the Church as for that diligence in setting aside the importunities of marriage which their attendance upon the service of the Church requireth It was therefore to be wished that the Westerne Church had used the limitation which the Nicene councill by resting contented with confirmed to admit of persons maryed before orders preferring before them those that are single But it must be granted that as well in the West as in the East though the aime was to perfer single life yet here and there now and then those that were maryed were not excluded It is not to be thought that one Spanish councill which had no effect at all without the bounds of it could as easily be reduced to effect in practice as couched in writing Especially the Generall councill of Nicaea having waived the motion of inacting the same But this demonstrates the credite of the Church of Rome in the Westerne Church at that time that the Rescripts of Syricius Innocent Popes are found the first acts to inforce the same which that Spanish council had inacted For the African and other Westerne Canons that injâ—ine the same are for time after Syricius Whereby it appeareth though they doe not use that exception which the councill of Nicca had supposed yet that the rule of single life for the Clergy was so troden under foot that it was found requisite to seeke meanes by the Synods of severall parts and by the concuâ—rence of the See of Rome to bring it into force For let no mâ—n think that those Canons took effect so soon as they were made which were made on purpose to restraine the mariages of the Clergy Who for the most part had from the beginning lived single but neither before nor after could be totally restrained from maryage It would be too large a worke in this place to repeate either the particular Canons which were made and the discourses of the Fathers to inforce them on the one side or on the other side the saying of the Fathers and other records in point of fact whereby the in execution of them doth appeare Those that would be satisfied in it may see what the Arch-Bishop of Spalato hath collected and find Epiph. his saying still take place during the flourishing time of the Church But all this while you heare nothing of any vowe annexed to the undertakeing of Holy Orders by vertue whereof maryage contracted under them should become voide For the vowe of single life being an act that disposeth of a man and his estate in this world to a totall change of his courses if he mean to observe it what reason can admit any ground for presuming of it when it is not expressed And the custom of the Eastern Church reduceth the penalty thereof unto the ceasing ofâ— that ministry by consequence of that maintenance which the order intitleth to which is not the penalty of breaking a vowe But the effects of these rules and indeavours of the Western Church was never such as to exclude the Clergy from marryage how much soever they might exclude maryed persons from the H. orders When Greg. the seventh undertook to bring them under a total restraint from maryage it is manifest that other maner of meanes were imployed to make that restraint forcible then the constitution of the Church indowes it with For that was the time when the Church undertooke to dispose of Crownes and scepters and to extend the spirituall power thereof to the utmost of temporall effects And therefore it is to be granted that by such meanes indeed it might and did come to effect But in point of fact onely not in point of right as being a rigor which the practice of all parts was sufficient protestation that the Church in that estate was not able to undergoe For the horrible and abominable effects thereof have beene so visiblâ— that it is not possible the cause of them should seeme the production of that reason which the being of any law requireth and supposeth Nor can the See of Rome justly be admitted to charge that no bounds have been observed in releasing of it which it cannot be denyed that the ancient Church in all places did observe For I truely for my part have granted that even Lawes given by the Apostles for the better governement of the Church though written in the scriptures may be dispensed in by the Church when the present constitution of things shall make it appear to the Governours thereof that the observation of that rule which served for that state in which it was prescribed â—ends to the considerable visible harme of the Church in the present state of it And therefore I will not take upon me to say that the state of bigamy which S. Paul I have showed maketh an impediment to some Orders can by no means be dispensed with But the See of Rome which dispenseth with it as of course paying the ordinary fees I conceive cannot in justice charge the releasing of the rule of single life to all the Clergy though in some measure a Law of the whole Church And how many Canons of the whole Church besides are there which must be trampled under foot by bringing that unlimited power into effect which now it exerciseth I could therefore earnestly wish for mine owne parte that some reservation had beene used in the releasing of it that the respect due to single life by our common Christianity might have remained visible to Christian people by the priviledge of it in the Church Nor doe I thinke my selfe bound by being of the reformation to maintaine the acts by
such thing as a Councill according to the supposition of the congregations And therefore in the acts of Counciles which are the Lawes whereby the Church is to be ruled the people can have no further satisfaction then to see them openly debated under the knowledge of the people Indeed the interest of Soveraigne powers in Church maters which I allow not onely in order to the publicke peace but as they are members of the Catholicke Church and so trusted with the protection of all that is Catholicke in behalf of the people gives them that power over the acts of Counciles which by and by I shal declare Which though grounded upon another account and belonging to them in an other quality then that which the constitution of the Church createth is notwithstanding provided by God to secure his people of their Christianity together with the unity of the Church But the suffrage of the people of every Church that is their acknowledgment that they know no exception against the persons in nomination for Bishops or other orders of the Church as it agreeth with the proceedings of the Apostles and primative Church so must it needs be a most powerfull meanes to maintaine that strict bond of love and reverence between the Clergy and the people in the recovery whereof the unity of the Church consisteth And supposing publick penance retrived without which it is in vaine to pretend Reformation in the Church there can be no stronger meanes to maintaine Christianity in effect then the satisfaction of the people though not in the measure of penance to be injoyned yet in the performing of it Alwaies provided that this interest of the people be grounded upon no other presumption that any man is the child of God or in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods spirit then that which the law of the Church whereby he injoyes communion which the Church createth For this presumption must needs be stronger concerning the Clergy by their estate then it can be concerning the people Because by their estate they are to be the choice of the people And though as all morall qualities are subject to many exceptions some of the people may be better Christians then some of the Clergy yet a legall presumption that any of them is so must needs be destructive to the Unity of the Church But no disorder in religion can be so great as to justifie the obdurate resolution of the Church of Rome to withdraw the scriptures from the people There is nothing more manifest then that the lamentable distractions which we are under have proceeded from the presumption of particular Christians up on their understanding in the scriptures proceeding to think their quality capable of reforming the Church Onely those that can have joy of so much mischief to our common Christianity can thinke otherwise But I am not therefore induced to thinke our Christianity any other then the Christianity of those whom our Lord whom S. Paul and other Apostles and Prophets exhort and incourage to the study of the scriptures Whom S. Chrysostome and others of the Fathers so earnestly deale with to make it their businesse All the offense consists in this that private Christians observe not the bounds of that which is Catholike when they come to read the scriptures For if they be not content to confine the sense of all they read within that rule of faith in which the whole Church agreeth because they understand not how they stand together If they thinke the Lawes of the whole Church can command things contrary to that which God by scripture commandeth It is no marvaile they should proceed to make that which they think they see in the Scripures though indeed they see it not a Law to the Church For they think it is Gods will that ties them to it But if the Church be the Church as I have showed it is then was the Scripture never given private Christians to make them Judges what all Christians are bound to believe what the Church is to injoine the Church for the condition of communion with the Church If any man object the inconvenience that it appeareth not who or where that Church is and so we are confined to those boundes that cannot appeare This inconvenince is the clearest evidence that I can produce for the Catholike Church For unlesse we grant this inconvenience to come by Gods institution and appointment we must confesse the unity of the Church to be Gods appointment because the dissolution thereof produceth this inconvenience For were the unity of the Church in being I could easily send any man to the Catholike Church by sending him to his owne Church Which by holding communion with the whole Church must needs stand distinguished from those which hold it not though under the name of Churches And he who resorts to the Church for resolution in the Scriptures supposes that he is not to break from the Church for that wherein the whole Church is not agreed Now that the unity of the Church is broken in pieces it remaines no more visible to common sense what it is wherein the whole Church agrees as the condition for comunion with it But the meanes to make it appear againe having disappeared through disunion in the Church is that discourse of reason which proceeds upon supposition of visible unity established by God in the Church And the meanes to make it appear againe to common sense is the restoring of that unity in the Church by the interruption whereof it disappeareth Then shall the edification of particular Christians in our common Christianity proceed without interruption by meanes of the Scriptures every one supposing that his edification in the common Christianity dependeth not upon the knowledge of those things wherein the Church agreeth not but of those things wherein it agreeth In the mean time it remaineth that offenses proceed to be infinite and endlesse because men giving no bounds to their studies in the Scriptures imagine the edification of the Church to consist in that wherein themselves not regarding the consent of the Church have placed their own edification in the Scriptures CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the effect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians câ—aseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclâ—siasticall Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Interest of the State in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimoniall causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon acts of Episcopacy but upon the Secular Powers
of Christendome AND now I may make good that which might seem an excessive word when I said it that the Power which I demand for the Church is no more then the subsistence of every Corporation constituted by Soveraine Power requireth Onely that it stands by Gods Law these by mans For what Corporation subsisteth without publick persons to governe or to execute those things wherein it communicateth without any power to limit that which the Lawes of the foundation determine not to admit and to shut out whom the foundation thereof qualifieth without a stock to defray the charge of those offices for communion wherein it subsisteth That which renders the power of the Church considerable even in the Church that is by the originall constitution of it is the extent thereof comprising all Christians For by that meanes in what quality a man is owned by his own Church in the same he is owned by all Christians supposing the unity of the Church to take place and prevaile That which renders it considerable in the world is the professing of Christianity by the Soveraine Powers of the World that is of those States which Christendome containeth For supposing that which hath been made to appear that the Church being a Society formed by the act whereby God constituteth it dissolveth not into the state when by professing Christianity it becoms obliged to protect the Church The rights and Powers thereof and the qualities of persons ministring the same necessarily remaine distinct from those which the State wherein it subsisteth either involveth or produceth And the Protection of the state signifieth further that allowance or that maintenance of the rights that concurre to the acts thereof which a Christian State needs must afford that Christianity which it professeth The Power of ministering the immediate instruments of Grace the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist The power of the Keyes in exacting that profession which qualifieth for them the meanes subordinate to the ministring of them The power of solemnizing those Offices with the Prayers of the Church which the Promise of Grace implied in the foundation of the Church attendeth all these make the act of the Church meerly ministeriall the blessing that attendeth the meer effect of Gods grace onely limited to the communion of his Church When the Church determineth the times the places the persons the occasions the formes the circumstances the maner of celebrating any of those offices which qualify for Communion in the service of God with the Church of those which provide for the celebration thereof of those wherein it consisteth the acts whereby it determineth that which God hath not determined done within the Sphere of Gods Law oblige all to conformity by Gods Law as the acts of Corporations oblige the members by the act of the State upon which they stand Not as if this conformity were the worship of God but that wich prepareth and maketh way for it The Lawes of the Apostles though recorded in Scripture are necessarily by the subject matter of them of this nature Therefore I maintaine them subject to change upon the same account as the Lawes of all visible Corporations are necessarily subject to change He that should think the observing of them pleasing to God for the thing which they injoyne and determine not for that act of Gods service the circumstance whereof they limit might commit superstition in observing the Lawes given by the Apostles as well as by the Church There may be ground for a presumption in reason that there is superstition in doing that which for the nature and kind of it may lawfully be done when there is so much businesse about the circumstance that there is no appearance to reason how it can stand and be done in order to the principall which it pretendeth For example Pilgrimage to the holy Land hath in it a pretense of extraordinary devotion to which a man sequestreth his time from his attendance upon this world and the advantages of it But if in effect the exercise of devotion appear not the principall is there not ground in reason for a construction that a man hopes to bribe God with his bodily exercise to grant those effects of Grace which he cannot be obliged to but by the condition which the Gospel importeth This is superstition and will-worship in the badde sense or the vaine worship of God by doctrines delivered by men which our Lord and the Prophet Esay charge the Jewes with When a man stands upon the circumstances tending to limit the order and uniformity of that worship of God in Spirit and Truth wherein Christianity consisteth as if the observation of them were the substance of it And yet that uniformity which the Lawes of the Church procure so necessary to the maintenance of Gods service for which it standeth that there is no lesse superstition in standing upon the not doing of them Which cannot be stood upon so farre beyond the sphere of their kind and nature without appearance of an imagination that a man becomes acceptable to God by refusing them But to proceed to violate the unity of the Church upon such a cause is nothing else then to place the worship of God as much in committing sacriledge as in abhorring of Idols This being the utmost of what the Church is able to do by the originall constitution thereof it will not be prejudiciall to that service of God which Christianity injoyneth that the acts thereof should take hold upon the conscience Because it is easily understood by that interruption of Gods service which the disorders of this time have made visible how every Christian is bound in conscience to concurre to that uniformity which as it procureth the service of God so is procured by the Lawes of the Church But this effect is invisible between God and the conscieuce The visible effect of the originall power of the Church is considerable in regard of the greatnesse of that Body which is the whole Church and ownes the act of every Church done within the within the true sphere by giving effect to it But it becomes considerable to the world by that accessory force which the protection of the Church by the power of the World necessarily insuing upon the profession of Christianity so long as the acknowledgement of one Catholick Church is a part of it addeth to the acts of the Church by owning them for the acts of a Corporation which the State protecteth Before I come to limit this effect I must acknowledge one part of the Church-right to have ceased and become voide by the coming of the world into the Church and the conversion of the Romane Empire to the Faith That is the power of ending all sutes between Christians within the Church Saint Paul is expresse in it And the generality of our Saviours command to resort to the Church if thy brother offend thee can never be satisfied with any other sense The Synagogue had the same order upon the
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
by And besides this consequence another will rise that this is the sense of all Christendome to wit where Christians are governed by Christians that there is no such thing as any power of the Church by Gods Law because all Christendome agrees Soveraignes in doing subjects in admitting that it is limitable by the Secular which cannot limit Gods Law but its own This being the force of that objection which is so largly pursued in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. my answer is That having showed how the decrees of the Apostles themselves as for the mater of them are limitable and determinable by the Church to such circumstances as may make them usefull to the Church for another state then that for which they were first made I am to grant that the Lawes also and other acts of the Church may be limited by the secular power as for the execution and exercise of them For as the Society of the Church and all the acts thereof done in virtue of Gods Charter by which it stands supposing Christianity so Christianity supposeth common-wealths that is to say the government of this world in and by those Soveraignties which subsisted when Christianity came into the world or may lawfully come to subsist afterwards For not to dispute for the present whether civill Governement subsist by the law of God or by humane consent seeing it cannot be said to subsist by the same act that is by the same declaration of Gods will by which the Church that is Christianity subsisteth it is manifest that the title by which the Church standeth must not be inconsistent with that title by which civill governement deriveth it self from the will of God And therefore that they may and must suppose one an other Who ever challenges to the Church a power in all civil causes and over all persons to ordaine and by force of their armes to execute what the Church that is those that have right to conclude the Church shall thinke the consideration of Christianity shall require he I grant erecteth a Power destructive to the civill govâ—nement Which to stand tyed to execute a decree that may be contrary to the decree of those that governe is necessarily inconsistent with But that which I say is this That the Church hath power to determine all maters the determination whereof is requisite to mainetain the communion of Christians in the service of God and to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that communion But no power to give execution to them by force of armes which the Soverain power of every state onely moveth Supposing for the present that no armes can be moved but originally from the soveraign nor any thing executed by any force which is not ultimately resolved into the power of the sword which the Soveraige beareth as known to common sense And by consequence I say that the Soveraign power having right to make the acts of the Church Lawes of the state by declaring to concur to the execution of them by the force which it moveth must needs have right to judge whether they be such as Christian powers ought or may concur to execute and accordingly limit the exercise of them But thereby I intend not to grant that Christian powers may not exceed their bounds of right in opposing and suppressing the effects oâ— those acts which may be duely don by the Church nor to dispute this point upon supposition that the particulars related in that X. Chapter I de Synedriis ought to have the esteem of precedents as things well done and within the limits of secular power in Church maters For I have already granted that the power of the Church that is to say of those that pretend it on behalfe of the Church hath so far transgressed the bounds as to suffer the temporall power of the Church in ordine ad spiritualia to be disputed and held being really destructive to all civill Governement and to act too many things not to be justified but upon suspition of it And therefore I think I demand but reason when I take leave â—o suppose that soverâ—â—gne powers are subject to erre as all men are especially in so nice a point as is their owne interest in Church matteâ—s And that these Errors may have proceeded to the hinderance of Christianity even by such acts as were intended to have the force of standing Lawes But what hath been well or ill done in this kind is not my businesse here to dispute That which I have to doe now is in generall to determine in what consideration the civill power which the Church of England granteth to be soveraign in all causes and over all persons both Ecclesiastical Civill in the dominions thereof giveth the acts of the Church the force of the Lawes of the state Which I have already expressed to be two-fold As soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever may seeme to importe an attempt upon the right of it whâ—ch subsisting without the Church iâ— to be maintained against all incrochment of whomsoever may claime in behalfe of the Church And as Christians because civill powâ—r being presupposed to the being of the Church which standeth upon supposition of the truth of Christianity the sword of Christians stâ—nd obliged to protect the Church against all pretenses For seing the society of the Church is a part of Christianity as hath been showed of necessity it followeth that Christian poweâ—s stand obliged by their Christianitie both to protect those that are lawfully possessed of right in the behalfe of the Church of their dominions in the exercise of it and also to restraine them when their acts whether expressely attempted or maintained by use of long time prove prejudiciall to that common Christianity which the being of the church presupposeth But as this necessarily presupposeth that those that claim on behalf of the Church may proceed to actions so prejudiciall to the state as may deserve to be punished or restrained by civill temporal penalties of all degrees So wil it necessarily infer that civill powers may proceed to excesses not onely in their particular actions but also in violating and oppressing the Church that the Church may be obliged to proceede against them by cutting them off from the communion of the Church so that therein subjects do stand obliged not to obey them in violating and oppressing the Church and to abstaine from communicating with them in the mysteries of Christianity continuing neverthelesse obliged to them in all the offices which the maintenance of the state which Christianity presupposeth will require at the hands of good subjects This being said I will summon the common sense of Christendom to give sentence of the truth or likenesse to truth of this argument All Christian Princes and States doe limit the use of Ecclesiasticall power within their owne dominions Therefore they doe not believe any such thing as a Church or any power derived from any Law of God by
which it standeth For it is manifest that the powers from whose acts this argument is drawne are such as hold communion with the Church of Rome and acknowledg the Pope in behalf of it As manifest it is that the Pope not onely challengeth to be head of the Church in Church maters but maintaineth Friers Canonists to chalenge for him Soveraigne power in civill causes over all persons in order to Christianity To say then that by the acts which they limite the use of Ecclesiastical power by they pretend that there is no Power in the Church but what they give it is to say that by those acts they contradict themselves and proclaime their own professing themselves Sons of the Church not onely to be without cause but to signifie nothing as words without sense Which with what modesty it can be affirmed in the face of Christendome I leave to Christendome to judge Onely I will here summon the liberties of the Gallicane Church as they are digested by that worthy Advocate of Paris P. Pithaeus to give sentence in this cause being a peece much appealed to by the Father of this argument as that which deserves to be accounted of prime consequence in the businesse I desire those that will take the pains to looke into them to tell me whether they find not these two to be the first two points of them That the King of France is Soveraigne in his own dominions and that he is Protector of the Canons Liberties and priviledges of the Church And then I desire them to imploy the common understanding of men to pronounce whether these be not the same points of secular interest in Church maters which I have advanced Namely as Soveraigne to have no competitor in the right of the Crowne and as Christian to be borne Protector of the Catholicke and Apostolick Faith and of the Church and of the Lawes of it which have no being but upon supposition of that faith whereof one part is the beliefe of the Catholike Church Onely I shall take notice that they protest that they are called Liberties and not Priviledges on purpose to signifie that they are no exceptions to the common right of all Soverainities in Church maters but essentiall points of it Which they call the liberties of the French Church in particular because the Kings of France they thinke have maintained them better then other Princes of Christendome have done In consequence of this collection of Pithaeus besids the proofs of them in two great volums we have of late a commentary of Petrus Puteanus upon these Liberties as they are digested by Pithaeus the businesse whereof is first to make good that they are of more unquestionable right in France then they have been and are practiced also by other Princes and states of Christendome which is answer enough to this whole argument as it stands upon the authority of Christendome expessed by the acts of it Neverthelesse I shall further alledge in this cause the collection which Frier Paul of the order delli Servi hath made of the articles accorded betweene the Pope and the state of Venice concerning the Inquisition the bounds of secular Power in the cognizance of those causes wherein that court may pretend concurrence of Jurisdiction with it I will not undertake to say that the state of Venice maintaining the Inquisition upon such termes as this collection or Capitular declareth doth maintaine those persons in the use of Ecclesiasticall power to whom by the common right of the whole Church it belongeth Neither will I maintaine that whatsoever those articles distinguish and allow the Inquisition is by virtue of the common right of the whole Church For who can ty him to expresse every where what is by Ecclesiasticall right and what of secular privilege by free act of tâ—e state bestowed upon the Church as all states that would be held Christians have alwaies done This I say that he that shall take the paines to look into it shall finde the bounds of secular and Ecclesiastical power so expressely distinguished upon the reasons which I have aleged that it shall be too late to say that they who acknowledge a Church and certaine rights by Gods Lawe belonging to the foundation of it doe contradict themselves when they do limit the exercise of those rights Being ready further to maintaine that they doe nothing but right when they limit the exercise of them according to the reasons which I have advanced As for the Leviathan who hath made himselfe so merry with compasing a state Christian in which the Ecclesiasticall power is distinct from the secular with the governement of Oberon and Queene Mabbe and theire Pugs in the land of Fairies If he speake of a state framed according to the opinion of those that make the Pope soveraigne in all causes and over all persons in order to Christianity I grant he hath reason For there is not nor can be any such state and it would be indeed a kingdome of confusion and darkenesse Nay where the Church it selfe is Soveraigne as in the Popes dominions show the difference of the grounds upon which severall rights and powers are held and exercised will be in some points though not in all no lesse visible then else where But if he intend by consequence to say the same of all Christian states that acknowledg an Ecclesiasticall power derived from the Law of God and not from the secular then I remit to those that shall have perused the practice of Christendome but in those short peeces that I have named whether they believe those states which so governe themselves to be the land of Fairies or his wits that writ such things to have beene troubled with Fairies And now in particular to say what the maintenance of the Church in giving Lawes to the Church requires that is to say in determining those maters the determination whereof becomes necessary for the maintenance of unity in the Communion of the Church It is easy to deduce from the premises that every Christian is under two obligations One to the Church which as a Christian he is bound to communicate with The other as belonging to that state of Government which he believeth to be lawfully setled in his country By the act of those whom he believes to have right to oblige respectively these two societies which if we speake onely of that part of the Church which is in one soverainty consist of the same persons if they be all of the same Church every Christian is respectively obliged For by the premises it remaines manifest that it is the act of the Church to determine the mater of Ecclesiasticall Law and give it force to oblige the respective part thereof under paine of forseiting the communion of the Church But the act of the state either not to hinder this effect when and where Christianity is onely tollerated as a corporation which it alloweth Or to make them Lawes of the state when and where
to be maintained by the first-fruits and oblations of Christians goods have not thought it fit to leave this maintainance to the daily wil of Christians but to make good that which they have vested in the Church for a standing indowment by protection of Law it is manifest that they have left themselves no particular right in that which either themselves have consecrated or allowed their subjects to consecrate to the use of the Church But it doth not follow from hence that they have abandoned and disclaimed that common right which every Common wealth hath in all goods of particular persons for the maintenance and defence of the Publick in the necessities of it Whereby it seemeth that be the gift of Ecclesiasticall goods never so large or so absolute for the form which private mens gifts go in the Soveraigne by making them good doth not abandon the right of publicke aide in them And therefore that the Common wealth may notwithstanding serve themselves of taxes imposed on Church goods Likewise seeing the use of Church goods is declared by all records of the Church as well as by the Scriptures to tend to the maintainance of the poor which is included in the intent of maintaining Gods service in the Church it followes that if Church goods be used otherwise by those that are not proprietors but trustees for the poor it is in the secular power to reduce and restore the use of them according to the original intent of the Church But to seize them into the hands of the secular power as if the Corporation of the Church could be dissolved by mans Law which is founded by Gods to be imployed to the advantage of the seizers of them is an attempt of sacrilege upon Gods goods first and by consequence upon Gods Law by which the Church standeth For the indowment of the Church may be invaded by Secular power upon the Title of publick aide but extended beyond any bound of it that reason or common sense can allow And this is sacriledge though consistent with an opinion that they are the Churches For it is no new thing for men to transgresse their profession by their actions But it may also be invaded out of an opinion that they are onely publick goods and not Gods And that opinion supposeth that there is no such thing as a Corporation of the Church founded by God which hitherto Christians by their Creed do professe to believe And therefore this is a sacrilege of an higher nature tending to root out all difference of good and bad according to Christianity that is grounded upon the constitution of the Church Seeing then that all Christian Kingdoms and states have thought themseves tied to inable the Church by their Laws to transmit those estates to posterity which either Soveraigns or private Christians have upon supposition of Gods Law indowed it with for how should all Christians agree to do that which no Law of Christianity obliged them to do it will be of no force to argue from any limitations which Christian States may have bounded the right of Tithes with that they did not believe the Church to be a Corporation inabled by God to hold an estate bestowed upon it but onely to be made such a one by their priviledges For as it appeares by the premimises that those limitations may be according to Gods Law So whether they be so or not it is to be judged by the grounds upon which I proceed here And this is the case of the right of Patronage reserved over Churches to those that first indowed them by consent of the Church in remembrance of their merit For as it may be so limited as to be no prejudice to the Church and to Christianity So that it is every where so limited I do not find my self tied to maintaine Of the concurrent interests of Church and State in marriage or matrimonial causes I cannot say much here Supposing the premises upon which I maintaine it I can undertake thereupon to evidence the weaknesse of this presumption That those Christian powers which take upon them to limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes do not believe any Ecclesiasticall power in them as of divine right that is to say any Corporation of the Church indowed by God with power to allow or disallow the marriages of Christians Suppose then that our Lord Christ hath introduced a new Law among Christians of the marriage of one with one and that indissoluble saving upon breach of wedlock Suppose that which I proved afore that the Lawes of Moses are not Lawes to the Church but arguments evidencing the Lawes of the Church by the correspondence betweene it and the Synagogue And therefore Granting that those degrees in which marriage was prohibited Jewes by the Leviticall Law are not licensed for marriage among Christians That it doth not follow that no further degrees are prohibited in the Church Suppose further from common sense and experience of the world that upon any new Law there will arise a multitude of new cases to be decided either by particular jurisdiction or by a generall Law And the power of deciding the same vested in that Corporation which first received the Law Suppose againe that marriage though among Christians limited to a mutuall interest in one anothers bodies for the preventing of concupiscence is notwithstanding a civile contract supposing the same freedome from error or force in the persons that contract that is requisite to the validity of all civil contracts And further that it may concerne the State to limit the qualities of persons that may contract it so that not being contracted within those bounds which the State shall limit it shall be either unlawfull or voide It will follow then upon these suppositions that Civile Powers may create lawfull impediments of marriage as of civile contracts But neverthelesse that the use of marriage is not to be deemed Lawfull untill the allowance of the Church give them assurance that the limitations given by our Lord and his Apostles to the marriages of Christians and the determinations which thereupon have proceded from the Lawfull power of the Church are not violated by the same Neither is it available to say as some have pretended to say that this right of the Church falls to the State when it professeth Christianity and the maintainance thereof all parties being members or subjects of it No more then that the society of the Church ceaseth and is swallowed up in the Common-wealth when the Soveraigne becomes Christiane Indeed among Gentiles whose Religion being contrived by the devill and his ministers was admitted by civile Powers as an expedient to keep their people in obedience Among Jewes whose religion given by God as a condition of maintaining them in the Land of Promise pretended expresly no more then the civile good of one people it is no marvaile that the determination of all things questionable concerning mariage should lastly resort to the civil Powers
whose dicision might secure the People of that good which the Law tendered if they should practice the Law of mariage according to their determinations But Christianity being tendered to all nations for their everlasting happiness one Society of the Church founded of all that should receive it of all nations and the limitations peculiar to Christianity occasioning many things to become questionable many times necessary to be determined for Christians the right of determining them can no more be thought an escheat to the civil power then the Church to the Common-wealth If then the Laws of all Christian Kingdoms and States have allowed the Lawes of the Church thus much force and interest in maters of marriage how much more soever they may have allowed then here is demanded It will be in vaine to argue from any Lawes of Christian States limiting the freedome of marriage or the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes that they do not believe the Church to be by Gods Law a society the allowance whereof upon the premised considerations becomes requisite to the lawfull use of marriage among Christians For seeing both the Church and the State are subject to mistake the boundes of their concurrent interests in matrimoniall causes And therefore that there may be cause for the State by the force which it is indowed with to barre the abuse of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same or that the State may do it without cause It is ridiculous to inferre that they who limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Power doe not believe the Church or any lawfull Power of it in such causes independent upon their owne The same is to be said touching the Ordaining of Persons to exercise the Power and right of the Church and to minister the offices of Christianity to Christian People No man will refuse civile powers the right of maintainig the publick peace and their estates by making all such acts ineffectuall through the force which they possesse as may be done to the disturbance of it No man will refuse them as Christian the interest of protecting the Church against all such acts as may prove prejudiciall to the common faith or do riolate the common right of the Church according to which such Ordinations are to proceed But having proved that those Ordinations are made and to be made by virtue of that Power which the Apostles have left in the Church and which our Lord gave the Apostles As it hath been cleared what interest in this power their acts will allow to those severall qualities which they have setled in the Church So it remaines manifest that those who have the interest cannot otherwise be hindred by secular force in the exercise of it then by the violation of that Law of God whereby the society of the Church and those rights whereupon it is founded subsisteth Not as if I did imagine that this right hath been violated so often as Christian Princes or States have nominated persons to be ordained which they for the publick peace and good of the Church and to hinder disorderly proceeding in the Church have thought fit to name For we have eminent examples even in the happy times of the Church of Ordinations thus made to the incomparable benefit of the Church And why should not the reasons premised be thought sufficient to justify such proceedings But because it is alledged by some even that mean no harm to the Church that the right of all parties devolveth to the State by the profession of Christianity Which plea if it were good there would be no reason why the Church and all the right of it should not he thought to accrue to the State by declaring it self Christian Here I will remember one of the most eminent actions that ever was done in Europe against the right of the Church which is the Concordates between Francis I. King of France and Leo X. Pope The Pragmatick Sanction of Charles VII had maintained the right of the Church in that dominion against divers perogatives pretended by Popes but it maintained the Church also in the election of Prelates which that Prince had a desire to seize into his hands Hereupon an agreement passes the King to make good the prerogatives pretended by the Pope the Pope to accept and to maintaine the Nominations of Prelates which the King should make Which Concordates with what difficulty and after how many protestations and Remonstrances of the Clergy of the university of Paris and Soveraigne courts of the Kingdome they were accepted I leave to them that will take the paines to peruse the relation thereof historically deduced by Petrus Puteanus to judge Not forgetting what Thuanus one of the Principall ministers of that kingdome as prime President of the Parliament at Paris hath said to posterity in the first book of his Histories That so great a Prince after having dissolved the course of Ecclesiasticall Elections introduced into the Church by the Apostles never prospered in any of his greatest undertakings And if in the contention betweene the Emperors and the Popes about Investitures the case truly stated will evidence that the common right of the Church was trodden under foot as well as that of the Soveraigne I report my self to the conscience of any man that can judge whether it be reason to inferre that the proceeding of Christendome acknowledges no such thing as a Church rather then to conclude that the particulars whether well or ill done which is not my businesse here are to be tried by the reasons premised Now for the Power of Excommunication whereupon the force of all acts of the Church depends every man knowes that since Constantine received Christianity he and after him all Christian Princes and States do necessarily pretend the advancement of it by temporal penalties and priviledges of their indulgence Among which one is that punishment which in other States as well as in England a man incurres by being Excommunicate He that would challenge the power of doing this for the Church from the originall right of it must transgresse the principles premised whereby it may appeare that the Church is not able to do any thing of it selfe that requireth secular force or tendeth to alter any mans secular estate in the Common-wealth Neither is there any more evident character of that usurpation which the Popes in behalfe of the Church have been chargeable with then the inforcing of their acts with temporall penalties But all such attempts naturally resolve into the highest whereby some Popes have pretended that by the sentence of Excommunication subjects are absolved of the allegiance they owe their Princes and stand free and may stand obliged to take up armes against them as they shall disect Which is so farre from standing with any pretense of mine that I professe further to believe that no Soveraigne is liable to the utmost excommunication called the greater excommunication among Divines and Canonists though limited and defined by them upon sundry and
divers suppositions of their own which I intend not hereby either to admit or to dispute because it is enough for my turne that we agree in this that the precept of avoiding the Excommunicate is limitable upon such considerations as the constitution and being of the Church presupposeth As the Apostle when he orders the Corinthians not so much as to eat with one that professeth Christianity and yet lives in the sinnes he nameth 1 Cor. V. 11. meaneth the same that he expresseth and signifieth by avoiding an Heretick Titus III. 10. S. John by not bidding him God speed and our Lord by holding him as a Heathen man or a Publicane But he that shall consider the vast difference between the State of Christianity under the Apostles and when the Empire and now severall Soveraignties professe it remembring that Christianity disolves not but maintaines civil Government and every mans estate in it must see this to be one of those Lawes which without limitation become uselesse to the maintenance of the Church and therefore must necessarily be limited that it may be serviceable The ordinary limitation of it by that verse of the Casuists is well enough known Vtile lex humile res ignorata necesse But he that will observe shall find that all these Exceptions to the generall rule of avoiding the Excommunicate are grounded upon that one title of the necessity of this world and the subsistence thereof which the being of the Church presupposeth A man converseth with the excommunicate for his profit to recover a debt This is the necessity of his estate of which he owes God an account in behalfe of his obligations A man or wife converses with wife or husband excommunicate for the bond of mariage This is that necessity which that law presupposed to the foundation of the Church createth Superiours and inferiours converse with one an other excommunicate This is the necessity of their estate which Christianity maintayneth Other necessities are warrantable under the generall title of necessity The necessity of violence or feare why should it not have a place here as well as that of ignorance onely that both are generall justifying all and not onely this kind of actions The necessity of giving and getting good counsaile or almes is all reducible to the same head Wherefore all these considerations resolve themselves into that generall ground which I tender that Christianity supposes the lawfull state of the world according to the reason of civill Government and altereth no mans condition in it of it selfe but maintaineth every man in that estate in which it findeth him as S. Paul argueth at large 1. Corin. VII 17-24 being such as Christianity alloweth By reason whereof the avoiding of the excomunicate easily to be visibly performed by Christians among themselves when their conversation was among many times more men that were not Christians becomes without limitation impossible to be observed of them that live onely with Christians How feasible that obligation is as the Casuists now make it I leave it to them to maintaine or how feasible it may be made This I say that all these reasons conccurre to oblige all Christian subjects not to forbeare the conversation of their Soveraignes The civill Laws of every state the advantage which the state of all subjects doth or may require from the soveraign the inâ—eriority wherein they are and the necessity which all these reasons produce For neither can Christianity pretend to disolve the Law of the land Nor can justice goe forwards without conversation of the subject with the soveraigne And Christianity obligeth superiours and inferiors to maintaine the relations in which it overtaketh them And finally the necessity of these reasons createth an exception even to the Law of the Church communion though setled by our Lord and his Apostles And this as much as to say that the greater Excommunication taketh no place against Soveraignes And this position is so far from being new in England that in my nonage it was disputed at Cambridge upon an eminent occasion at the reception of the Archbishop of Spalato by an expresse order of King James of excellent memory as I conceive I am well informed and thereby satisfied that I maintaine hereby no novelty in the Church of England But those that distinguish not this from the act of S. Ambrose in refusing the communion to the great Theodosius upon a horrible murther done by his expresse commandement may doe well to consider either with what conscience they censure such a Prelate in what they understand not or why they condemne the whole Church whereof all Christians are or ought to be members For how can the Church refuse any Christian the communion if it refuse not the same to all Christians even the soveraigne in that case wherein the condition of all is one and the same And hereby also wee may see what was the opinion of the learned Prince King James concerning this action of S. Ambrose whatsoever may have been said Who had he made question of the lesse excommunication consisting in excluding from the Eucharist would never have caused it to be disputed that the greater hath no place against Soveraigne As concerning the Jurisdiction of the Church in the causes of Christians if the question be made whether or no it now continue that common wealths professe Christianity the argument seemeth peremptory that it doth not continue because then of necessity all civill powers should resolve into the Power of the Church because all Jurisdiction by consequence to this priviledge must needs resolve into the jurisdiction of the Church all causes being the causes of Christians and resorting therefore to the jurisdiction of the Church and therefore no use of secular Courts but the power of the sword must become subordinate to execute the sentence of the Church And therefore seeing that on the otherside the reason why S. Paul forbids them to goe to sute before secular courts is this because they were the Courts of Infidels and that the scandals of Christians were by that meanes published before unbelievers which it is evident was the reason why this course was thought abominable even among the Jewes it is manifest that the jurisdiction of the Church in maters that arise not upon the constitution of the Church though inforced by S. Paul and our Lord ceaseth together with the title and cause of it when secular Powers professe Christianity Which notwithstanding it is a thing well known that the line of Charles the Great in the West revived those privileges which Constantine had granted the Church as his act also is repeaâ—ed in their Capitulares VI. 281. which Gratiane also hath recorded XI Quaest cap. Quicunque From which beginning many sorts of causes especialy such as charity seemed to have most interest in which the Clergy were thought fittest to manage have continued to be sentenced by the Ecclesiastical Court in all Christian dominions Notwithstanding that they rise not upon the constitution
of the Church nor doe originally be long to it to sentence And all this not distinguishing these severall titles hath been usually understood by the name of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction or the juâ—isdiction of the Church Neither is there any doubt to be made that not onely France in their appeales from the abuse of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction which are there warranted of course but also all Christian states as England in their premunires and injunctions have alwaies provided to redresse the wrong that might be don by the abuse thereof Nor doe I doubt that Spaine it selfe hath made use of such courses as may appeare not onely â—y great volumes upon that subject by Salgado de Somoza and Jeronymo de Cevallos whom I have not seene but more lively by the letters of Cardinall de Ossat where there is so much menâ—ion of the differences between the See of Rome and the ministers of that Crowne in Italy about the jurisdiction of the Church But will all this serve for an argument that there is no such thing as a Church no such jurisdiction as that of the Church in the opinion of Christendome but that which stands by the act of Christian powers because they all pretend to limit the abuse of it When as the very name of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in the title of those books those actions is sufficient demonstration that they acknowledge and suppose a right to jurisdiction in the Church which they pretend so to limit as neither the Church nor the rest of their subjects to have cause to complaine of wrong by the abuse of it Whether they attaine their pretence or no remaining to be disputed upon the principles hitherto advanced by any man that shall have cause to enter into any treaty of the particulars Neither is the publishing of Erastus his booke against Excommunication at London to be drawne into the like consequence that those who allowed or procured it allowed the substance of that he maintaineth so long as a sufficient reason is to be rendred for it otherwise For at such time as the Presbyterian pretenses were so hot under Queen Elizabeth it is no marvaile if it was thought to show England how they prevailed at home First because he hath advanced such arguments as are really effectuall against them which are not yet nor ever will be answered by them though void of the positive truth which ought to take place in stead of their mistakes And besides because at such time as Popes did what them listed in England it would have been to the purpose to show the English how Macchiavell observes that they were hampred at home And for the like reason when the Geneva platforme was cried up with such zeale here it was not amisse to show the world how it was esteemed under their own noses in the Cantons and the Palatinat And here I cannot forbeare to take notice of the publishing of Grotius his book de Jure summarum potestatum in sacris after his death because that also is drawn into consequence For it is well enough knowne that at his being in Eâ—gland before the Synod at Dort he left it with two great learned prelates of the Church of England Lanctlot Lord Bishop of Winchester and Iohn Lord Bishop of Norwich to peruse And that both of them agreeing in an advice that it should not be published he constantly observed the same till he was dead So that though the writing of it was his act yet the publishing was not But the act of those that would have it appeare that his younger works doe not perfectly agree with the sense of his riper yeares He that in the preface to his Annotations on the Gospels shall reade him disclaiming whatsoever the consent of the Church shall be found to refuse will never believe that he admitted no Corporation of the Church without which no consent thereof could have been observed And therefore may well allow him to change his opinion without giving the world expresse account of it I will adde hereupon one consideration out of the letter of late learned Hales of Eton Colledge from the Synod at Dort to the English Embassador at the Hague For Grotius was then every man knowes one that adhered to the Holland Remonstrants He speaketh of denying them the copie of a decree of the states read them in the Synod December 11. This at the first seemed to me somewhat hard but when I considered that those were the men which heretofore in prejudice of the Church so extreamely flattered the civill magistrate I could not but think this usage a fit reward for such a service And that by a just judgement of God themselves bad the first experience of those inconveniencies which naturally arise out of their doctrine in this behalfe It remaines onelly as concerning this point that I give account of the article of the Church of England which acknowledgeth the King Supreme Governour in all causes and over all persons as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill to this effect as having all that Right in maters of Religion which the pious Kings of Gods ancient people Christian Emperors and Princes have alwaies exercised in the Church And the account that I am to give is what the meaning of this collective which hath been exercised by the Kings of Judah and Christian Princes must be For I have showed that it is not to be granted that Christian Princes may doe that in Christianity which the Kings of â—srael did under the Law Because the Law was given to one people for a condition of the Land of promise the Gospell to all Nations for the condition of everlasting happinesse It is therefore consequently to be said That in as much as the reason and ground upon which the right which those Kings are found to exercise under the Law holds the same under the Gospell so far that power which the Church of England ascribes to the King in Church maters is the same which those Kings are found to exercise in the scriptures But wherein the reason holds not the same insomuch it is necessary to distinguish and acknowledge a difference It seemes to me that when the Law refers the determination of all things questionable concerning the Law in the last resort to the Priests and Levits and to the Judge that shall be in those daies at Jerusalem or the place which God should choose Deut. XVIII 8-12 the reason why it speaks indefinitely of Priest and Judge is because it intended to include the soveraigne whether High Priest who from after the Captivity untill the coming of Herod was chiefe of the people or Chief Judge whether those that are so called who as I said afore were manifestly soveraignes or after them the Kings so that by this Law nothing could be determined without the King either by himselfe or by subordinate Judges And the reason is evident For the penalty of transgressing this law being death otherwise we must allow inferior Judges the power of
it shall appear by Eusebius that the Councile of Antiochia having created a new Bishop and adjudged the possession of the Bishops Palace to him which Paulus Samosatenus defended by force and the Emperor being appealed to by the parties for execution adjudged the possession to him whom the Bishop of Rome and Italy should account lawfull Bishop I suppose I shall not need many words to show any reasonable man the very termes which I hold in this sentence to wit that the matter of it was determined by the Church the force and execution of it came from the Power of the Empire I had purposed here to examine some of those instances produced in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. some passages of Church Writers alledged in the Oxford Doctors Paraenefis to prove the Ecclesiasticall power meerely the effect of the secular because limitable by it But having debated thus farre the bounds between Gods Law and the Lawes of the Church and found the Law of the Church to be nothing but the limitation of Gods Law the force whereof comes from Gods generall Law in founding the Church I find not the least cause to distrust him that admitteth it as one to be turned aside with pretenses of so vast consequence upon such slight appearances I shall therefore thus turn him loose to apply the generall ground upon which I proceed to the particulars that may be alledged out of the ancient Church Onely one I must not leave behinde me the contest between the Emperors and the Popes about the Investâ—â—ures of Churches as carrying in it the meanes of changing the Regular Power of the Pope which I owne into the pretense of that infinite power which infallibility speaketh Yet is it not my purpose to state the case in debate because it would require the examining of many records in point of fact not advancing the discovery of the right a whit more then supposing it stated For supposing the investiture of a Church to signifie a right of contradicting an Election or to signify a right of delivering possession no man admitting the premises can deny that all Princes and States that are Christiane have â—â— them a right to do both though the terme of Investiture seem properly to signify onely the latter as signifying the ceremony of investing some man in the rights of his Church For if the Church be protected in the rights of it by the Lawes of the Land as upon the premises it cannot be denied that upon the States acknowledging the Church as founded by God it ought to be and must needs be protected all the reason in the World will require that the secular power be inabled to except against any mans person as prejudicall to the State and to render no account of such exception to any man as having no superiour in that trust to whom to render it But if under the title of Investiture the right of electing and consecrationg originally resident in the Clergy and People of each Church and the Bishops of the Province be seized into the hands of the secular power by the force thereof constraining each party to do their own parts in admitting the nomination thereof whether allowing it or not whatsoever trouble any Soveraigne procure in such a cause is meeâ— wrong and in a wrong cause The foundation of the Church setling the rights that concurre to the doing of it upon the qualities which it self createth But this is not therefore to say that the Pope or all the Church hath any right to depose such a Prince or to move warre against such a State by what meanes soever it may be done Because that is the effect of temporall power that is soveraigne which the Church hath not in point of right but usurpeth in point of fact by so doing He that can injoyn another man either to eject a Prince or destroy a State upon what terms soever he may dispose of it when that is done as he shall make the tenures of this world to depend upon Christianity so he makes himself Soveraigne in the world that ownes him in the doing it upon the same title of Christianity So the Popes had certainly a wrong cause in stirring warre which they had no title to do The Emperors whether they had a right or a wrong cause which God would punish by suffering the Popes to move warre without a title the state of the case must judge though for the most part in warres both parties are in the wrong insisting upon that which they have no right to insist upon for the termes of peace Let us consider what brought the Popes to this height of really and actually claiming temporall power over Soveraignties that is to be Soveraigne over Soveraignes by moving warre to destroy Princes and States I will suppose here the defection of the Italian forces from the Emperour Leo Isaurus for ejecting all images out of Churches and that he in reprisall for it seized the possessions of the Church of Rome in his dominions and translated the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall through the same upon his Church of Constantinople For in reprisall for this Pepin whose usurpation of the Crown of France Pope Zachary had allowed at the request of Pope Steven constraining the Lâ—mbards to render or to forbear those parts of the Empire which the Emperors at Constantinople were not able to maintaine any more against them bestowed them upon the Church of Rome under his own protection as the case sufficiently shewes especially admitting the Charter of Ludovieus Pius his Grandchilde to be but the confirmation of his Fathers and Grandfathers acts saving the difference of that title under which they were done For the Charter of Ludovicus Pius in Sigonins de Regno Italiae IV. manifestly reserving the Soveraignty to himself and his successors remits both the fruits and the administration of them to the Church charging himselfe to protect it in the same Which burthen we must needs understand that Pepin by his grant did undertake seeing that in point of fact the Church could neither undertake to hold them against the Lombardâ— nor against the Empire which till this act it acknowledged Soveraigne whatsoever in point of right it might do The act of Charles the Great coming between these two upon the ruine of the Lombards that is his own Soveraignty in reason must needs seem to have given the forme to the act of his son The power of this line decaying in Italy and those who had attempted to succeed it failing it is no marvaile if among the States of Italy that contracted with the Germanes to invest them in the same Soveraignty which Charles the Great and his line as Kings of Lombardy by conquest or as declared Emperor by the City of Rome the Head whereof was then the Pope whatsoever that declaration might signify the Pope in behalf of the City and Church of Rome appeared most considerable While the Germanes through their strength at home were able to
make good that protection which they undertook by the loyalty of them that injoyed it things must by consequence continue in this estate But when the removing of the Germane power from the line of Charles the great had done the operation of rendring them who succeeded obnoxious at home to them by whose faction they obtained it there was no great likelyhood that the obedience of strangers and Italians accustomed to changing of masters should continue This was the time that Gregory VII Pope and his successors took when the power of the Emperours in disposing the Churches of Germany by the right of investiture whatsoever in point of right it signified must needs render their interest envious as well at home as at Rome whatsoever occasions of discontent besides an Elective Crowne might produce For Charles the great as our William of Malmsbury noteth had heaped wealth and power upon the Churches by which he planted Christianity in Germany as placing a greater confidence of Loyalty in them then in any estate of his subjects besides And the example of that credit which the usurpation of Pepin had received by the allowance of the Pope seemed to justify any insurrection either of Italians or Germanes to which the Pope was a party For as to the issue of those Warres though the Pope got no more then reducing the adverse party to composition because he could not pretend any dominion for his Church by conquering yet must it needs turn to the advantage of his authority that had the greatest stroke in moving that warre which others made This is the story the morall whereof became the theme for those that undertook to preach the Popes temporall power over Soveraignties For successe to them that consult not with their Christianity is a plausible argument of right But the Interest of the Pope in Soveraignties having swelled so farre beyond the whole capacity of the Church the bad consequence of necessity followes that his originall power in the Church must needs swell so farre beyond the bounds as of regular to become infinite I will not now contend that the subjects of the Empire in Italy fell away from it because they thought themselves free of their allegiance by the excommunicating of the Emperor Leo Isaurus There is reason enough to think that the See of Rome cried up the worship of images contrary to the moderation of Saint Gregory some hundred years afore out of hope to advance their own power by impairing the rights of their Soveraigne But I charge no more then they pretend And there is appearance for another plea which is want of protection from the Empire at such time as recourse was had to the protection of the French But the vexation of the Germane Emperours manifestly pretended the temporall effect of the Popes excommunication in dissolving the bond of allegiance wherein the temporal power of the Pope consisteth The effect of which being such as it was it is the lesse marvaile that the rest of the Soveraignities of Christendome have entered into capitulations with the Pope such as the Concordates which I spoke of afore with France whereby to secure the government of their people in peace on that side they make the Popes pretense of power without bounds in Ecclesiasticall matters of law to their respective Dominions and Territories It is strange to him that considers without prejudice how they who imagine the Pope to be Antichrist could make their pretense popular that Episcopacy is the support of Antichrist For his unlimitted power in Church maters is but the regular power of all Churches united in one It is plainly made up for the See of Rome of feathers plucked from every Church So that if Episcopacy be the support of Antichrist then do their rights maintaine his usurpation by whom they are destroyed Did the Soveraignities of Christendome maintaine the Churches of their respective dominions in that right which the reguâ—ar constitution of the Church settleth upon them and that is it which the protection of the Church signifyeth it would soon appeare that he is Antichrist if Antichrist he be to their prejudice and disadvantage The See of Rome having got a decree at the Councile of Trent scornes any termes but absolute submission to it But the end of such an intestine warre by conquest as it would be extreamly mischievous bearing all down before the pretense of infallibility which must then prevaile So findes hinderances answerable to the advantages which the disunion of the adverse party ministreth The animosities of Potentates that adhere to it have made it visible that their interest consists in hindering the reunion of the Reformation to the Church of Rome And the pretense of dissolving allegiance by the sentence of excommunication is become no way considerable by the subsistence of them who regard it not Nor is the advantage which the favour thereof lends the armes of those Princes who tye themselves the most strictly to the interests of it any more considerable Whether or no it be time for them to bethink themselves that it were better for them to injoy the unquestionable title of a true Church and of the chief Church of Christendome which it is absolutely necessary for all Churches to hold communion with the common Christianity being secured then catching at the disposing of all mens Christianity without rendring any account to the Church which how dangerous for their own salvation is it to hang the unity of the Church meerly upon the interest of the World which how prejudiciall is it to the salvation of Gods people not upon the interest of Christianity themselves must judge This I am sure If Christian Powers maintaine their due right and title of Protectors of Gods Church it is the regular constitution thereof which they must maintaine The exemption of Monasticall Orders and Universities from the jurisdiction of their Ordinaries under whom they stand and the Synods to which they resort the reservation of cases dispensations in Canons provisions of Churches and the rest of those chanels by which power as well as wealth is drained from all Churches to Rome must needs be stopped up at least for the greatest part if Christian Soveraigns did protect the Church of their dominions in the right of ending causes that concern not the whole Church at home This were such a ground of confidence between Soveraignes and the Clergy of their dominions that it would be very hard to imagine any interest considerable to ingage against that interest by the prejudicing whereof neither of them could expect any advantage And this confidence the meanes to restore and to maintain that intercourse and correspondence between the Churches of severall Soveraignties by which when all Churches at least as many as easily outweighed the rest were under the Romane Empire the Unity of the Church was maintained without that recourse to temporall power which made it infinite Nor would there remaine any just ground of jealousie between the Pope and the
Councile The calling of a generall Councile I yeilded to the Empire during the time that it contained the whole Church Now that it is broken into severall Soveraignties and the Pope and Church of Rome subject to none of them but soveraigne of considerable dominions how should it not depend on him with the consent of the Soveraignties whereof Christendome consisteth How should not the consent of their Churches be involved in the same Indeed if by that originall intercourse the Churches understood one another there could arise no cause to complaine that any vote should be unduely obtained when it should be known afore that it could have no further effect then the voluntary consent of those who receive it which the free carriage of the debate must produce What prejudice the See of Rome could imagine to any regular preeminence that it may challenge by such proceeding as this it would be difficult to evidence As for the prejudice that matters in difference may create to the common Christianity which are at present the pretenses why this moderation cannot seeme rightfull and necessary when the parties are sufficiently wearied with prosecuting the extreamities which they pretend then will it appear though too late for the preserving of the common Christianity that the preservation of the common Christianity doth indeed consist in abating the extreme pretenses on both sides I have showed my opinion at least in grosse how and to what point they ought to be abated And I shall impute it to the common Christianity whatsoever offence I procure my selfe by showing it The end of the Third Book Laus Deo A CONCLUSION To all CHRISTIAN READERS BY the premises though I must not take upon me to determine that which the whole Church never did nor never will undertake to declare what is necessary to be believed for the salvation of all Christians as the meanes without which it is not to be had what is necessary to the salvation onely of those who become obliged by their particular estate Yet I conceive my self inabled to maintaine that onely those things which concern a Christian as a Christian are necessary to be known for the salvation of all Christians Those things which concern a Christian as a member of a Church becoming necessary to that salvation of every member of the Church according as the obligation which the Communion of the Church createth taketh place by virtue of his particular estate in the Church For it is not the same obligation that takes hold on the young and the old on the ignorant and the wise on those that have liberall education and those that live by their hands on Superiors and Inferiors on the Clergy and the People But the profession of that Christianity which our Lord Christ delivered to his Apostles to preach when he gave them authority to found his Church being the condition without undergoing whereof no man was to be admitted a member of the Church by being baptized a Christian as it is supposed to the being of the Church so must it of necessity containe whatsoever the salvation of all Christians requireth What a mans particular estate will require him to know that by his knowledge he may be inabled to discharge the obligation of it becomes necessary to his salvation by virtue of that particular estate But whatsoever obligation the acts and decrees of the Church can create is necessarily of this nature taking hold upon every estate as it stands bound to be satisfied that they injoyne nothing to be believed or done that is not necessarily either dependent upon or consistent with that which the necessity of salvation requireth all to professe It is therefore necessary for the salvation of all Christians to believe that there is one true God who made all things with all mankind having immortall soules and all Angels to indure for everlasting That governing all things by his perfect Providence which supposes the maintenance of them in acting according to their severall natures he shall at the end of the world which he hath determined bring the actions of all men and angels to judgement and assigne them their respective estate for everlasting as it shall appear their actions have deserved according to his Law For all this it was necessary to the salvation of all those that were saved under the Law to believe and therefore it is all presupposed to that wherein Christianity properly consisteth The people of God therefore held it when our Lord came neither had he any thing to reforme them in saving that pernicious opinion which the Pharisees had perverted it with that the Law of Moses whether Civile or Ceremoniall was the Law by which that people was to be saved or damned The incongruity whereof was so grosse that the Sadduces on the contraryside took advantage thereupon to deny the World to come The corruptions therefore which these Sects had brought in being cleared The Faith of Gods ancient people remaines thus far the Faith of his Church If any question may remaine concerning the end of the World whether or no necessary then expressely to be believed it is not considerable here But further in regard the coming of Christ which brought Christianity must be maintained necessary to the salvation of all It is necessary to salvation to believe that our first parents being seduced from the obedience of God by apostate Angels neither themselves nor their posterity would have been able of themselves to recover that amity with God here which might bring them to happinesse in the world to come That therefore God by his Word diversly ministred before and under the Law indeavored to reconcile mankinde to himselfe againe But with so little successe the greatest part thereof being swallowed up in Idolatry and of his own people the greater part being carried away with the hope of salvation by outwardly keeping Moses Law that at length it appeared requisite that the Word of God should become incarnate by the holy Ghost of the Virgine Mary And by his obedience to God in preaching the termes of reconcilement with God to his People and suffering death at their hands for so doing should voide the interest which God had allowed the apostate Angels in mankind whom they had cast down And by rising againe and going up to the right hand of God should give the holy Ghost the fullnesse whereof dwelt in his manhood as planted in the Word incarnate both to reduce them to Christianity and to inable them to persevere in it Undertaking to give whomsoever shall professe Christianity by being baptized into the Church and live according to it remission of sinnes here and everlasting life in the world to come in consideration of the obedience of Christ provided by him for that purpose For by his second coming raising all from death to life he that was judged here afore shall then judge the world and rendring them that have disobeyed God everlasting punishment shall render everlasting happinesse to them whose
you say something more to limit the ground upon which they may be no lesse What limitation I would adde is plain by the premises The preaching of that Word and that ministring of the Sacraments which the Tradition of the whole Church confineth the sense of the Scriptures to intend is the onely mark of the Church that can be visible For I suppose preaching twice a Sunday is not if a man be left free to preach what he will onely professing to beleeve the Bible which what Heresy disowneth and to make what he thinks good of it And yet how is the generality of people provided for otherwise unlesse it be because they have preachers that are counted godly men by those whom what warrants to be godly men themselves In the mean time is it not evident that Preachers and people are overspread with a damnable heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England called Etonists and Grindeltons according to severall Countries These believe so to be saved by the free Grace of God by which our Lord died for the Elect that by the revelation thereof which is justifying Faith all their sinnes past present and to come are remitted So that to repent of sinne or to contend against it is the renouncing of Gods free Grace and saving Faith How much might be alledged to show how all is now overspread with it The Book called Animadversions upon a Petition out of Wales shall serve to speak the sense of them who call themselves the godly party as speaking to them in Body Thus it speaks pag. 36. Look through your vail of duties profession and ordinances and try your heart with what spirit of love obedience and truth you are in your work And whether will you stand to this judgement Or rather that God should judge you according to grace to the name and nature of Christ written upon you and in you Sure the great Judge will thus judge us at last by his great judgement or last judgement Not by the outward conversation nor inward intention but finally by his eternall Election according to the Book of Life This just afore he calleth the seed of Christ and his righteousnesse in a Christian And pag. 38. When we are inraged we let fly at mens principles being not satisfied to rebuke mens actions opinions and workes but would be avenged of their Principles too As if we would kill them at the very hart pull them up by the Rootes and leave them in an uncurable condition rotten in their Principles But Principles ly deeper then the heart and are indeed Christ who is the Principle and beginning of all things who though heart fail and flesh faile yet he abides the root of all Shall he pretend to be a Christian that professes this Shall any pretend to be a Church that spue it not out Let heaven and earth judge whether poor soules are otherwise to be secured of the Word then by two sermons a Sunday when the sense of the Godly is claimed to consist in a position so peremptorily destructive to salvation as this It will be said perhaps that now the Ministers of the Congregations have subscribed the confession of the Assembly But alas the covering is too short When a Bishop in the Catholick Church subscribed a Councile there was just presumption that no man under his authority could be seduced from the Faith subscribed Because no man communicated with the Catholick Church but by communicating with him that had subscribed it Who shall warrant that the godly who have this sense not liable to any authority in the Church shall stand to the subscriptions of those Ministers or to the authority of the Assembly pretended by the Presbyteries If they would declare themselves tied so to do who shall warrant that there is not a salvo for it in the Confession which they subscribe If there were not why should any difficulty be made to spue out that position which is the seed of it That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is of the number of the Elect for whom Christ died excluding others Why that which is the fruit of it That they who transgresse the Covenant of Baptisme come not under the state of sin and damnation come not from under the state of Grace Why but because a back-door must be left for them that draw the true conclusion from their own premises reserving themselves the liberty to deny the conclusion admitting the premises It is not then a confession of faith that will make the Word that is preached a mark of the Church without some mark visible to common sense warranting that confession of Faith As for the Sacraments no Church no Sacraments If they suppose that ground upon which that intent to which the whole Church hath used them there is no further cause of division in the Church for that secures the rule of Faith If not they are no Sacraments but by equivocation of words they are sacriledges in profaning Gods Ordinances The Sacrament of Baptisme because the necessary meanes of salvation is admitted for good when ministred by those who are not of the Church but alwaies void of the effect of grace To which it reviveth so soone as the true Faith is professed in the unity of the Church If a Sacrament be a visible signe of invisible grace that baptisme is no baptisme which signifieth the grace it should effect but indeed effecteth not Such is that Baptisme which is used to seale a Covenant of Grace without the condition of Christianity a Covenant that is not the Covenant of two parties but the promise of one Whence comes the humor of rebaptizing but to be discharged of that Christianity which the baptisme of the Church of England exacteth Why do they refuse Baptisme in New England to all that refuse to enter into the Covenant of Congregations How comes it more necessary to salvation to be of a Congregation then to be Baptized and made a Christian Is it not because it is thought that salvation is to be had without that profession of Christianity which the Sacrament of Baptisme sealeth That it is not to be had without renouncing it Upon these termes those that are denied Baptisme by the Congregations because they are not of the Congregations are denied salvation as much as in them lies but not indeed and in truth For the necessity of baptisme supposing a profession of the Catholicke Church they perish not by refusing it who will not have it by renouncing the Catholicke Church that is by covenanting themselves into Congregations They that are so affected must know that they have authority of themselves to baptize to effect which no Congregation in New England is able to do If the Sacrament of the Eucharist seale that Covenant of Grace which conditioneth not for Christianity it is no sacrament but by equivocation of words Where that conditionall is doubtfull or voide there is no security
not that which is invisible by their authority in point of right For want of this authority whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being voide before God I will not examine whether the forme wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they thinke fit to exercise agree with the ground and intent of the Church or not Only I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the body and blood of Christ without which the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist Whether having departed from the Church Presbyteries and Congregations scorne to learne any part of their duty from the Church least that might seeme to weaken the ground of their departure Or whether they intend that the elements remaine meere signes to strengthen mens faith that they are of the number of the elect which they are before they be consecrated as much as afterwards The want of Consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministred the ministring of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity renders it much more On the other side the succession of Pastors from the Apostles or those who received their authority from the Apostles is taken for a sufficient presumption on behalfe of the Church of Rome that it is Catholick But I have showed that the Tradition of Faith and the authority of the Scriptures which containe it is more ancient then the being of the Church and presupposed to the same as a condition upon which it standeth That the authority of the Apostles and the Powers left by them in and with the Church the one is originally the effective cause the other immediately the Law by which it subsisteth and in which the government thereof consisteth That the Church hath Power in Lawes of lesse consequence though given the Church by the Apostles though recorded by the Scriptures where that change which succeeds in the state of Christendome renders them uselesse to preserve the unity of the Church presupposing the Faith in order to the publick service of God But neither can the Church have power in the faith to add to take away to change any thing in that profession of Christianity wherein the salvation of all Christians consisteth and which the being of the Church presupposeth Nor in that act of the Apostles authority whereby the unity of the Church was founded and setled Nor in that service of God for which it was provided There is therefore something else requisite to evidence the Church of Rome to be the true Church exclusive to the Reformation then the visible succession of Pastors though that by the premises be one of the Laws that concurre to make every Church a Catholicke Church The Faith upon which the powers constituted by the Apostles in which the forme of government by which the service of God for which it subsisteth If these be not maintained according to the Scriptures interpreted by the originall and Catholicke Tradition of the Church it is in vaine to alledge the personall succession of Pastors though that be one ingredient in the government of it without which neither could the Faith be preserved nor the service of God maintained though with it they might possibly faile of being preserved and maintained for a mark of the true Church The Preaching of that Word and that Ministring of the Sacraments understanding by that particular all the offices of Gods publicke service in the Church which the Tradition of the Whole limiteth the Scriptures interpreted thereby to teach is the onely marke as afore to make the Church visible To come then to our case Is it therefore become warrantable to communicate with the Church of Rome because it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries or Congregations This is indeed the rest of the difficulty which it is the whole businesse of this Book to resolve To which I must answer that absolutely the case is as it was though comparatively much otherwise For if the State of Religion be the same at Rome but in England farre worse then it was the condition upon which communion with the Church of Rome is obtained is never a whit more agreeable to Christianity then afore but it is become more pardonable for him that sees what he ought to avoide not to see what he ought to follow He that is admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by the Bull of profession of Faith inacted by Pius IV. Pope not by the Councile of Trent besides many particulars there added to the Creed which whether true or false according to the premises he sweares to as much as to his Creed at length professes to admit without doubting whatsoever else the sacred Canons and generall Councils especially the Synode of Trent hath delivered decreed and declared damning and rejecting as anathema whatsoever the Church damneth and rejecteth for heresie under anathema But whether the whole Church or the present Church the oath limiteth not Here is no formall and expresse profession that a man believes the present Church to be Infallible And therefore it was justly alledged in the first Booke that â—he Church hath never enjoyned the professing of it But here is a just ground for a reasonable Construction that it is hereby intended to be exacted because a man swears to admit the acts of Counciles as he does to admit his Creed and the holy Scriptures Nor can there be a more effectuall challenge of that priviledge then the use of it in the decree of the Councile that the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha be admitted with the like reverence as the unquestionable Canonicall Scriptures being all injoyned to be received as all of one rancke Which before the decree had never been injoyned to be received but with that difference which had alwaies been acknowledged in the Church For this act giving them the authority of prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not afore though it involve a nullity because that which was not inspired by God to him that writ it when he writ it can never have the authority of inspired by God because it can never become inspired by God Nor can become known that it was indeed inspired by God not having been so received from the begining without revelation anew to that purpose yet usurpeth Infallibility because it injoyneth that which no authority but that which immediate revelation createth can injoyne Further the decree of the Councile concerning justification involving a mistake in the terme and understanding by it the infusion of grace whereby the righteousnesse that dwelleth in a Christian is formally and properly that which settles him in the state of righteous before God not fundamentally and metonymically that which is required in him that is estated in the same by God in consideration of our Lord Christ Though I maintaine that this decree prejudiceth not the substance of Christianity Yet must it not be allowed to expresse the true reason by which it
is a thing necessary to the subsistence of all communities Nor is a private person chargeable with the faults of the Lawes under which he lives untill it appeare that by the meanes of those faults he must faile of the end for which the community subsisteth That is of salvation by communicating with the Church of Rome But to make a private Christian a party to the decrees and customes of the Church by swearing to admit and imbrace them all because he communicateth with it is to make him answerable for that which he doeth not He that would swear no more then he believes nor believe more then he can see cause to believe being a private Christian and uncapable to comprehend what Lawes and customes are fit for so great a Body as the Church must not swear to the Lawes of the Church as good or fit were there no charge against them because past his understanding but rest content by conforming to them to hold communion with the Church But in stead of mending the least of those horrible abuses which the complaints of all parts of Christendome evidence to be visible to exclude all that will not sweare to them is to bid them redeem the communion of the Church by transgressing that Christianity which it ought to presuppose Well may that power be called infinite that undertakes to do such things as this But how should the meanes of salvation be thought to consist in obeying it Here is then a peremptory barre to communion with the Church of Rome onely occasioned by the Reformation but fixed by the Church of Rome That order which severall parts of Christendome had provided for themselves under the title of Reformation might have been but provisionall till a better understanding between the parties might have produced a tollerable agreement in order whereunto a distance for a time had been the lesse mischievous had not this proceeding cut off all hope of peace but by conquest that is by yeilding all this And therefore this act being that which formed the Schisme the crime thereof is chiefly imputable to it As therefore I saide afore that the Sacrament of Baptisme though the necessary meanes of salvation becomes a necessary barre to salvation when it inacteth a profession of renouncing either any part of the Faith or the unity of the Church So here I say that the communion of the Eucharist obtained by making a profession which the common Christianity alloweth not a good Christian to make is no more the meanes of salvation to him who obtaineth it upon such termes how much soever a Christian may stand obliged to hold communion with the Church And this is the reason that makes the communion of the Church of Rome absolutely no more warrantable then afore now that it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries and Congregations But comparatively an extremity in respect to the contrary extremity holds the place of a meanes Nor did I ever imagine that the humor of reforming the Church without ground or measure may not proceed to that extremity that it had been better to have left it unreformed then to have neglected those bounds which the pretense of Reformation requireth I say not that this is now come to passe comparisons being odious But this I say that he who goes to reforme the Church upon supposition that the Pope is Anti-Christ and the Papists therefore Idolaters is much to take heed that he miskenne not the ground for that measure by which he is to reforme And taking that for Reformation which is the furthest distant from the Church of Rome that is possible Imagine that the Pope may be Antichrist and the Papists Idolaters for that which the Catholick Faith and Church alloweth It is a marvaile to see how much the zeale to have the Pope Antichrist surpasses the evidence of the reasons which it is proved with For otherwise it would easily appeare that as an Antipope is nothing but a pretended Pope so Antichrist is nothing else but a pretended Messias He who pretends to be that which Christ is indeed and to give salvation to Gods people Our Lord foretells of false Christs and false Prophets Mat. XXIV 24. Marke XIII 22. and those are the Preachers of new Sects which pretended to be Christs and which pretended not to be Christs Simon Magus and Menander we know by Irenaeus and Epiphanius Dositheus by Origen upon Matthew pretended all of them to be the Messias to the Samaritanes who as Schismaticall Jewes expected the Messias as well as the Jewes Saturninus and Basilides were false prophets but not Antichrists because not pretending that themselves were the Messias but pretending some of those whereof they made that fullnesse of the Godhead which they preached to consist to be the Messias Among the Jewes all that ever took upon them to be the Messias besides our Lord Jesus are properly Antichrists Among whom Barcochab under Adriane was eminent But there is reason enough to reckon Manichaeus and Mahomet both of that ranck As undertaking to be that to their followers which the Jewes expected of the Messias to save them from their enemies and to give them the world to come For Manichaeus seems indeed to have given himself the Name of Menahem signifying in the Ebrew the same as Parucletus in Greeke because he pretended to be assumed by the holy Ghost as not he but Christians believe that the Word of God assumed the manhood of Christ But when he writ himself Apostle of Jesus Christ in the head of his Epistle called the foundation which S. Austine writes against it was not with an intent to acknowledge our Lord the true Christ whose coming he made imaginary and onely in appearance but to seduce Christians with a colourable pretense of the name of Christ and some ends of the Gospels as you heard Epiphanius say to take himself for that which Christ is indeed to Christians Saint Austine contra Epist Fund cap. VI. suspecteth that he intended to foist in himself to be worshipped in stead of Christ by those whom he seduced from Christ And shows you his reason for it there But whether worshipped or not for it cannot be said that Mahomet pretended to be worshipped for God by his followers though he could not be that which our Lord Christ is to Christians unlesse he were worshipped for God yet he might be that which the Messias was expected to be to the Jewes in saving them through this world unto the world to come Whether Christians are to expect a greater Antichrist then any of these towards the end of the world or not is a thing no way clear by the Scriptures And the authority of the Fathers is no evidence in a matter which evidently belongs not to the Rule of Faith It is not enough that Saint John saith Ye know that the Antichrist is coming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 John II. 28. for how many thousand articles are there that signify no such eminence and
therefore how shall it appeare to signify here any more then him that pretends to be the Christ For it is evident that Saint John both there and 1 John IV. 3. speakes of his own time As for the Revelation neither is it any where said that it prophesieth any thing of Antichrist nor will it be proved that it saith any thing of the Pope Much of it being a Prophesie hath been expounded to all appearance of something like the Pope though with violence enough All of it without Prophesying what shall come to passe could never be expounded to that purpose and it is not strange that so great a foundation should be laid upon the event of an obscure Scripture such as all Prophesies are to be conjectured by that which we think we see come to passe For I referre to judgement how much more appearance there is that it intendeth the vengeance of God upon the Pagan Empire of Rome for persecuting Christianity both in the Text and composure of the prophesie and in the pretense of tendring and addressing it Nor is there any thing more effectuall to prove the same then the Idolatries which it specifies that the Christians chused rather to lay down their lives then commit True it is no man can warrant that by praying to Saints for the same things that we pray to God for and by the worship of Images Idolatry may not come in at the back door to the Church of Rome which Christianity shuts out at the great Gate But if it do the difference will be visible between that and the Idolatry of Pagans that professe variety of imaginary deities by those circumstances which in the Apocalypse expresly describe the Idolatries of the Heathen Empire of Rome And therefore I am forced utterly to discharge the Church of Rome of this imputation and to resolve that the Pope can no more be Antichrist then he that holds by professing our Lord to be the Christ and to honour him for God as the Christ is honoured by Christians can himself pretend to be the Christ Nay though I sincerely blame the imposing of new articles upon the faith of Christians and that of positions which I maintaine not to be true yet I must and do freely professe that I find no positinecessary to salvation prohibited none destructive to salvtion injoyned to be believed by it And therefore must I necessarily accept it for a true Church as in the Church of England I have alwaies known it accepted seeing there can no question be made that it continueth the same visible body by the succession of Pastors and Lawes the present customes in force being visibly the corruption of those which the Church had from the beginning that first was founded by the Apostles For the Idolatries which I grant to be possible though not necessary to be found in it by the ignorance and carnall affections of particulars not by command of the Church or the Lawes of it I do not admit to destroy the salvation of those who living in the comunion thereof are not guilty of the like There remaines therefore in the present Church of Rome the profession of all that truth which it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians to believe either in point of faith or maners Very much darkned indeed by inhansing of positions either of a doubtful sense or absolutely false to the ranck and degree of matters of Faith But much more overwhelmed and choaked with a deal of rubbish opinions traditions customes and ceremonies allowed indeed but no way injoyned which make that noise in the publick profession and create so much businesse in the practice of Religion among them that it is a thing very difficult for simple Christians to discerne the pearl the seed and the leaven of the Gospel buried in the earth and the dough of popular doctrines and observations so as to imbrace it with that affection of faith and love which the price of it requires But if it be true as I said afore that no man is obliged to commit those Idolatries that are possible to be committed in that communion it will not be impossible for a discerning Christian to passe through that multitude of doctrines and observations the businesse whereof being meerly circumstantiall to Christianity allows not that zeale and affection to be exercised upon the principall as is spent upon the accessory without superstition and will-worship in placing the service of God in the huske and not in the kernell or promising himself the favour of God upon considerations impertinent to Christianity As for the halfe Sacrament the service in an unknown language the barring the people from the Scrptures and other Lawes manifestly intercepting the meanes of salvatian which God hath allowed his people by the Church It seems very reasonable to say that the fault is not the fault of particular Christians who may and perhaps do many times wish that the matter were otherwise But that the Church being a Society concluding all by the act of those who conclude it there is no cause to imagine that God will impute to the guilt and damnation of those who could not help it that which they are sufferes in and not actors Nay t is much to be feared that the authors themselves of such hard Lawes and those who maintaine them will have a strong plea for themselves at the day of judgement in the unreasonablenesse of their adversaries That it is true all reason required that the meanes of salvation provided by God should be ministred by the Church But finding the pretense of Reformation without other ground than that sense of the Scriptures which every man may imagine and therefore without other bounds and measure then that which imagination for which there are no bounds fixeth They thought it necessary so to carry matters as never to acknowledge that the Church ever erred in any decree or Law that it hath made Least the same error might be thought to take place in the substance of Christianity and the Reformation of the Church to consist in the renouncing of it Which we see come to passe in the Heresy of Socinus And that finding the Unity of the Church which they were trusted with absolurely necessary to the maintenance of the common Christianity whereby salvation is possible to be had though more difficult by denying those helps to salvation which such Lawes intercept They thought themselves tied for the good of the whole not to give way to Laws tending so apparently to the salvation of particular Christians On the other side supposing the premises there remaine no pretense that either Congregations or Presbyteries can be Churches as founded meerly upon humane usurpation which is Schisme not upon divine institution which ordereth all Churches to be fit to constitute one Church which is the whole I need not say that there can be no pretense for any authority visibly convayed to them by those which set them up having it in themselves before I
who create the parties by heading the division have to look about them least they become guilty of the greatest part of soules which in reason must needs perish by the extremities in which it consisteth And the representing of the grounds thereof unto the parties though it may seem an office unnecessary for a private Christian to undertake yet seemeth to me so free from all imputation of offense in discharging of our common Christianity and the obligation of it that I am no lesse willing to undergoe any offense which it may bring upon me then I am to want the advantages which allowing the present Reformation might give me In the mean time I remaine obliged not to repent me of the resolution of my nonage to remaine in the communion of the Church of England There I find an authority visibly derived from the act of the Apostles by meanes of their successors Nor ought it to be of force to question the validity thereof that the Church of Rome and the communion thereof acknowledgeth not the Ordinations and other Acts which are done by virtue of it as done without the consent of the whole Church which it is true did visibly concurre to the authorizing of all acts done by the Clergy as constituted by virtue of those Lawes which all did acknowledge and under the profession of executing the offices of their severall orders according to the same For the issue of that dispute will be triable by the cause of limiting the exercise of them to those termes which the Reformation thereof containeth which if they prove such as the common Christianity expressed in the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of the whole Church renders necessary to be maintained notwithstanding the rest of the Church agree not in them the blame of separation that hath insued thereupon will not be chargeable upon them that retire themselves to them for the salvation of Christian soules but on them who refuse all reasonable compliance in concurring to that which may seem any way tollerable But towards that triall that which hath been said must suffice The substance of that Christianity which all must be saved by when all disputes and decrees and contradictions are at an end is more properly maintained in that simplicity which all that are concerned are capable of by the terms of that Baptisme which it ministreth requiring the profession of them from all that are confirmed at years of discretion then all the disputes on both sides then all decrees on the one side all confessions of faith on the other side have been able to deliver it And I conceive I have some ground to say so great a word having been able by limiting the term of justifying faith in the writings of the Apostles according to the same to resolve upon what termes both sides are to agree if they will not set up the rest of their division upon something which the truth of Christianity justifieth not on either side For by admitting Christianity that is the sincere profession thereof to be the Faith which onely justifyeth in the writings of the Apostles whatsoever is in difference as concerning the Covenant of Grace is resolved without prejudicing either the necessity of Grace to the undertaking the performing the accepting of it for the reward or the necessity of good works in consideration for the same The substance of Chrianity about which there is any difference being thus secured there remaines no question concerning Baptisme and the Eucharist to the effect for which they are instituted being ministred upon this ground and the profession of it with the form which the Catholick Church requireth to the consecration of the Eucharist Nor doth the Church of England either make Sacraments of the rest of the seven or abolish the Offices because the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments Nor wanteth it an order for the daily morning and evening service of God for the celebration of Festivalls and times of Fasting for the observation of ceremonies fit to create that devotion and reverence which they signify to vulgar understandings in the service of God But praying to Saints and worshipping of Images or of the Eucharist Prayers for the delivery of the dead out of Purgatory the Communion in one kind Masses without Communions being additions to or detractions from that simplicity of Gods service which the originall order of the Church delivereth visible to common reason comparing the present order of the Church of Rome with the Scriptures and primitive records of the Church there is no cause to think that the Catholick Church is disowned by laying them aside It is true it was an extraordinary act of Secular Power in Church maters to inforce the change without any consent from the greater part of the Church But if the matter of the change be the restoring of Lawes which our common Christianity as well as the Primitive orders of the Church of both which Christian Powers are borne Protectors make requisite the secular power acteth within the sphere of it and the division is not imputable to them that make the change but to them that refuse their concurrence to it Well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire thereof to restore publick Penance been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates and not stifled by the tares of Puritanisme growing up with the Reformation of it For as there can be no just pretense of Reformation when the effect of it is not the frequentation of Gods publick service in that forme which it restoreth but the suppressing of it in that form which it rejecteth So the communion of the Eucharist being the chiefe office in which it consisteth the abolishing of private Masses is an unsusticient pretense for Reformation where that provision for the frequenting of the communion is not made which the restoring of the order in force before private Masses came in requireth Nor can any meane be imagined to maintaine continuall communion with that purity of conscience which the holinesse of Christianity requireth but the restoring of Penance In fine if any thing may have been defective or amisse in that order which the Church of England establisheth it is but justice to compare it in grosse with both extreames which it avoideth and considering that it is not in any private man to make the body of the Church such as thâ—y could wish to serve God with to rest content in that he is not obliged to become a party to those things which he approves not conforming himself to the order in force in hope of that grace which communion with the Church in the offices of Gods service promiseth For consider againe what meanes of salvation all Christians have by communion with the Church of Rome All are bound to be at Masse on every Festivall day but to say onely so many Paters and so many Aves as belong to the hour Not to assist with their devotions that which they understand not much lesse
Title to the salvation of Gods people they have enough in the Scriâ—tures interpreted by the Original Tradition practice of the whole â—hurch both to condemn the errors which the ground of their Comâ—â—nion obliges them to disown to give such a rule to the order of 〈◊〉 Communion in the offices of Gods service as the present state 〈◊〉 compared with the primitive state of those Christians who â—â—fir â—ucceeded the Apostles shall seem to require It is indeed a very great case to me that having declared against untrue and unsufficient causes for dividing the Church for which there can be no cause sufficient I have owned the cause which I think sufficient for a particular Church to provide for it selfe without the consent of the whole For by this meanes I secure my self from being accessory to Schisme and the innumerable mischiefes which it produceth But I confesse this declaration makes me liable to a consequence of very great importance That there is no true meane no just way to reconcile any difference in the Church but upon those grounds and those termes which I propose For supposing the Society of the Church by Gods Law upon what termes the least sucking Heresy amongst us is reconcileable to the party from which it broke last supposing it reconcileable upon the grounds and termes of our common Christianity upon the same termes is the Reformation reconcileable to the Church of Rome the Greek Church to the Latine all parts to the Whole the Congregations and Presbyteries to the Church of England Whereas not proceeding upon those grounds not standing on those termes all preâ—ense of reconciling even the Reformed among themselves will prove a meer pretense Laus Deo FINIS Faults escaped in the firse Booke PAge 7. line 47. r. shall it be disc pag. 20. l. 45. r. to all sentences p. 21. l. 50. 1 Thes V. 14 15. r. 12 13. l. 52 Heb. XII r. XIII 23. 39. r. the act 40. 6. then those r. better then â— 28. under-r undertooke 48. 30. r. washing or sitting downe to 59. 53. r. adulterers 66. 28. Ladies day r. Lords day 89. 53. secret to the r. seâ—reâ— so 95. 46. with r. which 115. 26. those found r. thes 116. 33. that this r. that is 121. 4. r. intertainment 122. 7. Church with r. with him 137. 8. without r. within 140. 13. r. virtue of the 147. 1. we had r. he had 57. r. indowment 155. 25. now have r. now are 172. 34. after Acts put 176. 25. dele rome 177. 52. r. he eat 178. 28. then it was r. as it was 181. 57. r. so continuall 182. 51. to Gods r. to use G. 183. 37. comming from Christ r. of Christ 185. 6. after lamented put 186. 21. there may r. may be 189. 29. r. change 190. 14. banquet r. banquet 28. passive r. positive 45. r. owned 193. 16 â—ele argument 221. 2. not up r. cast up 235. 18. if when r. when 237. 16. which the r. with the 37. aliver r. alone 241. 16. Ahab r. Jehn 248. 50. Jeroboams then r. Jeroboams sinne 250. 38. neither r. either Second Book Pag. 7. l. 30. r. we be p. 8. 36. John 7. 37. r. 39. 40. r. now if 20. 41. Joh. IV. r. Ephes IV. 22. 12. that those r. those that 62. 19. he pert r. be pâ—rt 23. Heb. IV. 16. r. 1. 68. of as r. of man as 71. 33. r. evidenced 101. 55. r. the Angels 109. 9. and both r. so bâ—th 116. 56. as you may by r. as you may see by 118. 35. Solomons r. Solomons words 36. r. composed 119. 51. dele â—â— 125. 28. r. to deriâ—e 26. 53. which r. with which 128. 31. r. they thought 162. 5. tendred r. raended 164. 54. serve or the purpose not r. serve the purpose or not 165. 24. concerning r. consining 56. upon necessity r. upon the like n. 166. 21. after that r. the line afore iâ—ports this or that 167. to see that it supposeth r. that it is sup 171. 55. r. comes not to passe 174. 45. will not r. shall not 184. 28. of that k. r. or that k. 57. for which they addict themselves to love r. which they addict themselves to for love 51. r. with the 189. 35. discerne r. deserve 192. 36. ye knowing r. ye knowe 193. 34. or r. if 195. 15. â—ay r. might 35. 1. Ad â—â—â—ah 198. 24. that is r. that it is prophets r. prophet 199. 12. were r. we are 17. in r. is 49. r. soverainty 201. 13. upon passe r. to â—asse 203. 31. generation r. regen 206. 49. observations r. observation 207. 51. lusted r. lasted 208. 56. teach r. reach 209. 10. deceâ—t r. decree 22. you r. them 26. verifying r. resolving 211. 34. supposed r. suppose 215. 21. causes r. clauses 216. 6. XI r. I. 217. 53. refutes r. refuses 218. â—agined r. imagining 52. without the bonds r. wâ—thâ—n the bounds 219. 9. adxe r. adde 220. 3. of the r. to the 37. r. allwayes freely doe it 221. 24. whereby r. that order 922. 34. by one r. by somâ— 223. 37. revealed r. related 224. 30. S. S. Austine point S. Austme 225. 57. of God r. to God 240. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 247 49. r. or to show 250. 12. they can be r. can be 251. 32. this part r. his â— 256. 55. in sending r. â—endriâ—g 259. 16. r. conceiving 260. 32. r. having excluded 35. r. proposes 261. 29. 31. r. premises premises 264. 27. r. 〈◊〉 281. 6. r. â—â—â— can 282. 38. r. distinguisâ—eâ—h 289. 45. r. which the 296. 26. let him in r. let them 297. 7. the rank of it r. the werk 300. 25. as I said 1. I said 304. 33. should be r. that God should 307. 13. but the r. be â—â—â—â—â— Third Book Pag. 6. l. 9. r. to be no more 12. 54. it not r. is not 14. 2. which r. with 16. 1. is not r. is the 19. 6. after r. afore 37. 47. r. though not under 54. 7. r. times r. termes 55. 53. r. promises 58. 21. truly one r. done 61. 23. r. on purpose 64. 21. r. S. Peter 65. 51. r. Zonarâ—â— 66. 10. a dore r. alone 69. 37. r. refused 38. r. construed 48. r. whatsoever 70. 1. r. Predestinatians 86. 1. r. Novatians 88. 55. r. Homil. 91. 25. r. Cappadocâ—â— 95. 25. r. Synedrâ—â—s 98. 58. repentance r. upon rep 110. 55. r. prescribed 111. 22. r. ministery 32. was Apostle r. we Apostles 113. 56. r. import 57. practice 1. Priests 115. 53. r. prefers 116. 4. for forn r. except for â— 117. 54. r. draw them 119. 57. corrected r. 〈◊〉 122. 1. time r. â—erme 123. 12. r. is it 128. 2. r. Mileu 137. 49. r. Gentium secuâ—â—â—m 〈◊〉 139. 13. r. her husbands brother 145. 4. r. all one 151. 29. r. setled 160. 16. r. Eldest 163. 58. r. will find 164. 41. according the r. to the 169. 33. r. the third 43. r. of the chief 178. 42. r. rights 191. 44. r. good works 197. 2. first r. seventh 206. 39. r. further for the ord 209. 1. r. so subject to 25. r. once a moneth 252. 2. r. if it be true all 273. 32. or so as 276. 46. or r. nor 277. 54. r. noâ— by the order 279. 2. r. conferred 280. 12. r. preached 282. â—2 and more r. and not 283. 46. r. oblige 285. 17. r. which God 44. upon r. up an 288. 10. r. God which tho 292. 20. seem r. serve 31â— 22. r. apparitions 316. 10. r. it is 318. 56. r. if the fire 327. 26. our r. one 328. 58. dele ne 334. 41. r. consecration 335. 29. in the r. is 336. 41. as he r. she 338. 7. r. grounded 56. this rec r. 〈◊〉 339. 31. r. variety 341. 22. r. and makes 26. not missing r. missing 29. any dif r. â—o â— 342. 16. r. which by to blessing 345. 30. r. Chrisme 36. hands r. bâ—nds 5â— some r. serve 349. 50. r. subsisteâ—â— 352. 6. r. premises 353. 53. instructing r. in serving 356. 55. sometimes 360. 7. r. no â— 364. 58. r. reasâ—â—able though noâ—â— 370. 55. r. Laickâ— 372. 53. r. ground 373. 38. r. necessarily 374. 5. r. degrees 374. 39. sureâ—y r. society 378. 13. r. as when 381. 36. r. upon Ep. but upon acts of the 385. 1. r. supposeth 40. r. supposition 54. r. of â—â—â— then that
consequences from the Old Testament And truly the same is the argument by which S. Paul recalls the Corinthians which Church evidently consisted as well of Jewes as Gentiles srom the misprision of Idolatry which they incurred by eating things sacrficed to Idols 1 Gor. X. 1-6-11 where having related what befell the people in the Wildernesse hee concludes These things hapned to them in a figure and are written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the world are come That is to say they are written to deterre Christians from the like sinnes by the fear of punishment correspondent to that which they incurred And therefore threatning Christians with the losse of eternal life by the example of Jewes coming short of the rest of the Land of Promise hee supposes the correspondence which I argue Which is yet plainer in the words of the Apostle Hâ—b X. 28 29. Hee that despised the Law of Moses under two or three witnesses died without mercy How much worse punishment do you think shall hee be thought worthy of that treads under foot the Son of God For it is manifest that his meaning or the answer of his question is a question how much eternal death is worse than that death which they incurred Onely that they incurred it de facto which under the Gospel hee saith not shall come to passe but reserveth hope of mercy In fine whosoever will go about to deny the mystical sense of the Old Testament must deny all the arguments that the Apostles make against them who supposing Christianity thought the Law necessary to salvation neverthelesse as impertinent to the purpose to which they are used All of them supposing this sense And therefore I conceive it is necessary to yield Origen this and whosoever imployes Origens reason that the mystical sense of the Old Testament is to be made good throughout so farre as it concernes the Old Testament because I have cautioned afore that the New Testament is begun to be discovered under the Old and according as the nature and subject of the several parts thereof will either require or indure Which is thus to be understood according to the grounds already laid If the Old Testament containe one continued Prophesie of our Lord Christ and of the New Covenant which hee preached and the People of God under it a figure of the Church then must the Rulers of Gods People the Patriarchs before the Law under the Law the Kings the Priests and Prophets be first figures of Christ whom all Christians suppose anointed King Priest and Prophet Then must the Civil Government of Gods People by them figure the spiritual conduct of the Church And in as much as particular Christians who are such not onely to the Church but to God by participating of Christs anointing are conformable to his example that which befell them outwardly in the leter under the Law befalls all Christians inwardly in the spirit This is no more than S. Austine proposes us as the Rule for expounding the Psalms and must take place all over the Old Testament where the reason is the same This for the Histories and Prophesies of the Old Testament As for the Precepts of the Law the Ceremonial do openly professe an intent of signifying and fore-telling the mystery of Christ and Christianity As for the Judicial they also may be said to be a figure of those precepts of inward and spiritual obedience which the Gospel declares as civil righteousnesse is a rude shadow of inward and spiritual righteousnesse And as in Aristotle a rude draught is said to be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a figure When the outmost lines of a picture give in grosse the shape of the person represented before it be filled up within to make the representation complete But it is not to be denied that there is a difference between these two reasons and wayes of figuring both derived from the same ground of foretelling and making way for Christ and the Church As for the instructions exhortations praises of God prayers and the rest of that nature which in consequence to the Covenant of the Law and the intimation of the Gospel with it was to contain are found in it or in the Prophets it were an impertinence to seek two senses in any part of it all belonging to the Gospel though accommodated to the dispensation of the Law in that the duties of Christians were to be more sparingly declared even by the Prophets than under the New Testament as I shall have time to show This râ—ason justifies that course of interpreting the Prophets which Grotius holds in his Annotations assigning the fulfilling of all their Prophesies to something that fell out to the ancient people of God afterwards by correspondence mystically to be fulfilled again in our Lord Christ and in his Church And thereupon brings upon this opinion the displeasure that hee undergoes for expounding Esay LIII first of the Prophet Jeremy and then mystically of our Lord Christ and his sufferings in correspondence to what befell that Prophet But those who are displeased at him for it should considar what hee hath said generally to the point upon Mat. I. 22 23. where it appears that the words of the Prophet Esa VII 14. were first fulfilled in a childe born Esay of the Prophetesse his wife if wee will allow any consequence of sense in the text For this reason is the ground upon which the like meaning of the rest will necessarily be found requisite And truly if Origen was justly rejected by the ancient Church for not making good the literal and historical sense of that which befell Adam and Eve in Paradise hee that will draw this out into consequence must necessarily yield those Prophesies which belong to our Lord and the New Testament to have been literally fulfilled in the temporal state of the Jewes afore Otherwise the history is no lesse destroyed in Prophesies than in the relation of Paradise And if all Prophets were figures of Christ it is no strange thing that the Prophet Jeremies sufferings being the greatest that wee finde recorded and from his owne people should figure our Lords This for Christ Now Prophesies either promising good or threatning punishment either to Gods people or their neighbor Nations the promises of temporal good to Gods people are if the premises be true promises of temporal good to the Church Threatnings of temporal punishment are predictions partly of the rejection of Gods ancient people partly of punishment upon the New noâ— continuing in the Covenant as I showed out of Psal XCV 7 Ebr. III. 7 But those promises trauslated to spiritual good concerne first certain remaines of Israel according to the flesh intended by God to be added to the Church Then the coming of the Gentiles to the communion of the same The comminations as spiritual signifying the utter destruction of both sorts of enemies as well Jewes as Gentiles or whatsoever enemies of Gods Church in the world to come Neither
is there just cause to think that thereby advantage is given to the Jewes against Christianity by granting that such passages out of which the New Testament drawes the birth and sufferings of our Lord are reasonably to be understood of his predecessors in Gods ancient people For it is plaine that it despite of the Jewes the works done by our Lord and his Prophesies concerning his Dying and Rising again and the destruction of the Jewes and the preaching of the Gospel to all Nations seconded by his Apostles and that which they did to winn credit that they were the witnesses of the same are the evidence upon which the Gospel obliges The Scriptures of the Old Testament which were no evidence to the Gentiles as much and more concerned in the Gospel than the Jewes were evidence and so to be not of themselves for what need Christ then have done those works But upon supposition that God intended not to rest in giving the Law but to make it the thred to introduce the Gospel by Which supposition as it is powerfully inforced by the nature of the Law and the difference between the inward and the outward obedience of God as it hath been hitherto declared and maintained So is it also first introduced by those works which our Lord declareth to be done for evidence thereof then made good by the perpetual correspondence between the Old and New Testament which any considerable exception interrupts And there reasons so much the more effectual because this difference of literal and mystical sense was then and is at this day acknowledged by the Jewes themselves against whom our Lord and his Apostles imploy it in a considerable number of Scriptures which they themselves interpret of the Messias though they are not able to make good the consequence of the same sense throughout because they acknowledge not the reason of it which concludes the Lord Jesus to be the Messias whom they expect If these things be true neither Origen nor any man else is to be indured when they argue that a mystical sense of the Scripture is to be inquired and allowed even where this ground takes no place For vindicating the honor of God and that it may appeare worthy of his wisedom to declare that which wee admit to be the utmost intent of the Scriptures For if it be for the honor of God to have brought Christianity into the world for the salvation of mankinde and to have declared himself by the Scriptures for that purpose then whatsoever tends to declare this must be concluded worthy of God and his wisedom whatsoever referres not to it cannot be presumed agreeable to his wisdom how much soever it flatter mans eare or fantasie with quaintnesse of conceit or language Now as I maintain this difference between the literal and mystical sense of the Old Testament to be necessary for the maintenance of Christianity as well as for understanding the Scriptures So are there some particular questions arising upon occasion of it which I can well be content to leave to further dispute As for example There is an opinion published which saith That the abomination of desolation which our Lord saith was spoken of by Daniel the Prophet concerning the destruction of Jerusalem Dan. IX 24 Mat. XXIV 15. Mar. XIII 14. was fulfilled in the havock made by Antiochus Epiphanes Which is also plainly called the abominatio of desolation by the same Prophet Daâ— XI 31. XII 10. Whether this opinion can be made good according to historical truth or not this is not the place to dispute Whether or no the difference between the literal and mystical sense of the Scriptures will indure that the same Prophesie be fulfilled twice in the literal sense concerning the temporal state of the Jewes once under Antiochus Epiphanes and once under Titus that is it which I am here content to referre to further debate One thing I affirme that notwithstanding this difference it is no inconvenience to say that some Prophesies are fulfilled but once Namely that of Jacob Gen. XLIX 8-12 that of Daniel IX 24. that of Malacbi III. 1. IV. 5 6. Because the coming of Christ boundeth the times of the literal and mystical sense And therefore there is reason why it should be marked out by Prophesies of the Old Testament referring to nothing else Againe I am content to leave to dispute whether the many Prophesies of the Old Testament which are either manifestly alleged or covertly intimated by the Revelation of S. John must therefore be said to be twice fulfilled once in the sense of their first Authors under the Law and again under the Gospel in S. Johns sense to the Church Or that this second complement of them was not intended by the Spirit of God in the Old Prophets but that it pleased God to signifie to S. John things to befall the Church by Prophetical Visions like those which hee had read in the ancient Prophets whereby God signified to them things to befall his ancient people For of a truth it is the outward rather than the spiritual state of the Church which is signified to S. John under these images A third particular must be the first Chapter of Genesis For in that which followes of Paradise and what fell out to our first Parents there I will make no question that hoth senses are to be admitted the Church having condemned Origen for taking away the historical sense of that portion of Scripture But whether the creation of this sensible world is to be taken for a figure of the renewing of mankinde into a spiritual world by the Gospel of Christ according to that ground of the difference between the literal and mystical sense of the Scripture which hitherto I maintaine This I conceive I may without prejudice leave to further debate But leaving these things to dispute I must insist that those things which the Evangelists affirm to have been fulfilled by such things as our Lord said or did or onely befell him in the flesh have a further meaning according to which they are mystically accomplished in the spiritual estate of his Christian people The chiefe ground hereof I confesse is that of S. Matthew VIII 17. where having related divers of our Lords miracles hee addeth that they were done That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet Esay LIII 4. Hee took our infirmities and â—are away our sicknesses Together with the words of our Lord Luke V. 17-21 where hee telleth them of Nazareth This day are the words of the Prophet Esay LXI 1. The Spirit of the Lord is upon mee because hee hath anointed mee to preach the Gospel to the poor fulfilled in your hearing And his answer to John Baptist grounded upon the same passage Mat. XI 4 5 6. Go and tell John what yee have heard and seen The blinde receive sight the lame walk the lâ—pers are cleansed the deaf heare the dead are raised and the poor have the Gospel preached them For
the Church provided for the service of God upon supposition of this common Christianity evidently destroyeth what it pretendeth to maintain I leave the case at present for their plea who cannot obtain the consent of the whole if they reform themselves But you see what reason I have to deny that this Reformation consisteth in voiding the obligation of the acts and decrees of the Church For the same reason the authority of Pastors is as visibly derived from the act of the Apostles in primitive Churches as their own authority is visible in the Scriptures And unlesse all Christendom could be cousened or forced at once to admit such an imposture they can be no Churches further than the name in which it is derived from the Law of nature and reason and the liberty left private Christians to dispose of themselves in Ecclesiastical communion where they please For of that liberty neither the Scriptures nor all Christianity since the time of them will yield one example I marvel therefore that S. Pauls commission to Timothy 1 Tim. V. 17. should seem to import no more then a reproof and that at the discretion of him that is reproved whether hee will admit it or return him as good as hee brings For if S. Pauls commission to Timothy extend no further what could hee have done more himself had hee been present And the Apostle injoyning obedience to those who first brought the Gospel and to those who presently ruled those Churches in the same terms Hebr. XIII 7 17. must needs be thought to give the successors their predecessors authority saving the difference observed afore So certain is it which I have advanced in another place that this opinion is not tenable without denying the authority of the Apostles in the quality of Governours of the Church For as to the exception that may be made concerning the use of this Power I have already demurred to the doubt that may rest in difference between the succession of Faith and the succession of persons In fine not to insist here what the respective interests of publick and private persons in the Church are and ought to be because it is a point that cannot here be voided It shall be enough to say that of necessity the authority of publick persons in and for the whole must be such as may make and maintain the Church a Society of reasonable people not a Common-wealth of the Cyclopes in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no body is ruled by any body in any thing according to Euripides As for the Synagogues that may be presumed rather then evidenced to have subsisted in the ten Tribes during the Schisme Let him make appear what hee can hee shall never have joy of it towards his intent so long as the difference between the Law and the Gospel stands which I have â—ettled that the Church and the State were both one and the same Body under the Law as standing both by the same title of it But several under the Gospel the one standing upon the common ground of all Civil Government the other upon the common Faith of Christianity which ought to make all Christian States one and the same whole Church For in the two Tribes who were at their freedom to resort to the Temple for that service of God which was confined to the Temple which all could neither alwayes do nor were bound to do there is no record of any settled order for assembling themselves to serve God either in the Law obliging of right or actually practised according to Historical truth How much lesse in the ten Tribes being fallen from the Law by the Schism And if there wanted not those who had not bowed the knee to Baal nor Prophets and schools of Prophets under whom they might assemble themselves yet was this far from a Society formed by a certain Rule and Order for communicating in Gods service as I have shewed the Church is And therefore hee who upon that account thinks himself free from the Rule of Gods service under which wee now have in the Church of England must first either nullifie the Gospel as owning no such thing as one visible Church or prove the Church in which hee received his Christianity to be apostate Now I confesse our Doctor here makes use of an assumption which I intend not to deny being an evident truth That every man hath the Soveraign Power of judging in mater of Religion what himself is to beleeve or to do For how should any man be accountable to God for his choice upon other termes But hee will intangle himself most pitifully if hee imagine That God hath turned all men loose to the Bible to make what they can of it and professe the Religion that they may fansie to themselves out of it Even those who make men beleeve the Infallibility of the Church must in despite of themselves appeal to the judgement of whomsoever they perswade to pronounce that so it is And for the rest how much soever he referre himself to him that hath intangled him in that snare it proceeds wholly upon this supposition to which hee hath once made his understanding a slave But if all the world should do as men do now in England make every fansy taken up out of the Bible a Law to their Faith not questioning whether ever professed owned or injoined by the Church or not it would soon become questionable whether there be indeed any such thing as Christianity or not these that professe it agreeing in nothing wherein they would have it consist And for my part the the mater is past question supposing what hath been said That God provided from the beginning of Christianity that all Churches should be linked together by a Law of visible Communion in the service of God and so to make one Church For by this means to become a Member of any Church was to become a Member of the whole Church by the right of visible Communion with all Churches into which all Members of any Church were baptized And this it is which made the Church visible For when a man had no further to enquire but what Christians they were who in every City communicated with all Christians besides the choice was ready made without further trial avoiding the rest for Hereticks or Schismaticks And this choice being made there was no fear of offense by reading the Scriptures the sense whereof this choice confined to the Faith and Rules received through the whole Church So that speaking of Gods Institution every man is Soveraign to judge for himself in mater of Religion supposing the Communion of the Church and the sense of the Scripture to be confined within that which it alloweth But hee who thereupon takes upon him to judge of Religion out of the Scripture not knowing what bounds the Communion of the Church hath given the sense of it shall never impute it to Gods Ordinance if hee perish by chusing amisse Now if it be objected
cause can be alleged why there should be a Church that is a Body and an authority to Order that Body if there be no Office for which it should assemble because that which it understandeth not is no such Office For I have laid this for a ground that the Society of the Church subsisteth for the Service of God at the common Assemblies of the Church in the Unity of the same Christianity So that though it may be alleged that the Unity of Christianity may be preserved by the Society of the Church though the Service of God be not understood yet the end for which it is preserved is not compassed when the Service of God is not performed by those who understand it not is Christianity requireth Certainly it is a question to be demanded of those of the Church of Rome why they do not preach to the people in Latine as well as they celebrate the rest of Gods Service in that Language if they be content to submit themselves to S. Pauls doctrine For whatsoever reason they can allege why that in the Vulgar and the rest in Latine will rather serve to demonstrate that it would be more visibly ridiculous than that it is any more against S. Pauls doctrine But is it any more to the benefit of Gods people toward the obtaining of their necessities of God that they should assemble to offer him the devotions which they understand not than not to assemble or offer none For whatsoever may be said that the devotions of those who do understand what they do are available to the benefit of those who do not will hold nevertheless though they were not present nor pretended to do that which the Congregation doth provided that they have as good a heart to do that which the Congregation doth as they have being present at it Unless wee suppose that God values their hearts because they are there more than hee would value them being elswhere Nor can I possibly imagine what can be said to all this but onely in abatement of that ignorance in the Latine of the Church service which the Nations of the Western Church may be supposed to attain to whether by custome of being used alwayes to the same form or because the Vulgar languages of Italy Spain and France being derived from the Latine may inable even unletered people to understand that or the most part of that which is said in Latine at the Church service which is the reason why the Jews after their return from Captivity having changed their Mother Hebrew into the vulgar tongue of the Babylonians and Châ—ldeans being indeed derived from it with lesse change then the Italian from the Latine maintained notwithstanding the service of God in their originall Hebrew so farr as we are able to understand by the circumstances produced elsewhere And though at this present some parts of it are rather Chaldeâ— then Hebrew yet they are now in such a condition that a great many of them are not able to attain either that language or the Hebrew but speak and understand onely that language where they are bred the service which they use in their Synagogues remaining in the Hebrew And the Greeks at this day having got a vulgar language as much differing from the ancient learned Greek as the Italian from the Latine notwithstanding cease not to exercise the serviceâ— of God in the learned Greek which they understand not Which the Western Nations and Nothern may continue to do with as little burthen as they voluntarily undergo least they should give the minds of rude people cause to make more doubt then they see upon a change which they see And truly I do think this consideration of preserving unity in the Church of such weight that I do not think it was requisite when the Latine tongue began to be worn out of use by litle and litle through the breaches made by the Germane Nations upon the Western Empire that the service of the Church should straight-way be put into the Languages of those Nations who were every day changing their languages and learning the Latine or rather framing new languages by mixing their own with the Latine Neither will I undertake to determine the time the state in which the Church first becomes or became obliged to provide this change for the same reason For it is evident that it had not been possible to preserve correspondence and intercourse between all these Nations with the maintenance of unity in that Christianity which while this change was making they had received had not the knowledge of the Latine among them made it reasonable to continue the use of it in the Church service But as the case is now that a totall change of the Latine into new languages hath been accomplished and that the greatest part of Christian people by many parts are by no means able to learn what is done at the service of the Church confiningit to the Latine I must needs count it strange that the example of the modern Jews in their Synagogues or those miserably oppressed Christans in Turky should be alleged as to prove that there is nothing to oblige the whole Church to provide betâ—r for all Christians then those Churches do for their people or the Jews for their Synagogues when we dispute what ought to be done We should rather look to the originall practice of Christendom which there may be reason to intitle unto the Apostles and consequently the changes that may have succeeded to a defect of succeeding ages failing and coming short of their institutions then allege the practice of the Jews which the Christians have so litle cause to envy that they may well conclude them to be a people forsaken of God by the litle appearance of Religion in the offices which they serve God with or the necessities of ignorant and persecuted Christians for a rule to Churches flourishing with knowledge and means of advancing Gods service If from he beginning when by the means of those who spoke Greek and Latine or other languages used within the Empire from whence the tidings of the Gospel came other Nations had received the service of God in those languages wherein the Churches of Rome Constantinople Alexandria or Antiochia or possibly other Churches from which their Christianity was planted did celebrate it they might with some colour of reason have argued that so it ought to continue in the Western Church But since it appeareth that the service of God hath been prescribed in the Arabick the Syriack the Ethiopick the Coptick the Sclavonian the Russe and other â—orâ—ain languages what can a man inferr from the practice of the Church of Rome not allowing the Saxons in Britain the Germanes in Almane and the North and Eastland Countries the Slavonians in Pole and Boheme and other parts the service of God in their Mother tongues towards the disputes of this time that they ought not to be allowed it but the inhansing of the Popes Power