give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him vers 9. And when 1 James 2 Cephas and 3 John c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Circumcision as is to be seen Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwayes resident and his seat fixt and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians But of this hereafter 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians I have sent unto you Epaphroditus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Compeer and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is we are told by Theodoret dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them saith Saint Hierom upon the same place and it is very observable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Jesus Christ but those other men which were Bishops of Churches and called Apostles by Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Churches or sometime Apostles alone but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but James the Lord Brother Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost but by Humane constitution and imposition of hands in relation to that part of his Office and his cure of the uncircumcision he limits his Apostolate to his Diocess and calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle of the Gentiles as Saint Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearly was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi Paulatim verò tempore procedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So Saint Jerome In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen were ordained Apostles and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance adding also that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopal sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolick ordination they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter Titus was Bishop of Crete and Epaphroditus of Philippi and these were the Apostles for Titus came with the Corinthian Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches to wit whose alms they carried but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches viz. of their own of which they were Bishops For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches yet Saint Paul not those Churches sent them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches not going from Corinth with the money but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem If any inquire of Titus or the Brethren they are the Apostles of the Church and the glory of Christ. So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity So that it is plain that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried and they having Churches of their own as Titus had Crete Epaphroditus had Philippi their Apostolate was a fixt residence and superintendency of their several Churches SECT V. And Office BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hath found them liars This Angel of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or Gaius the first a Disciple the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles and either of them knew them well enough it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons and counterfeit himself Saint Paul or Saint Peter And if they had yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead and he known to live in Paâ—mos known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles must dissemble an ordinary function not an extraordinary person And indeed by the concurse of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man Saint John chiefly pointed at For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd and Timothy a long while possess'd of it and perhaps Gaius after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that Saint John had not constituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination obtruding himself upon the
was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charged with all 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency or suppose personal excellencies Add to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seven Churches had but seven stars and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one star they must mean many stars and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as stars and no more Angels than Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000 as every star into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the exigency of the thing it self these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches and their names are commemorated Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equal number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and again Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Polycarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angel to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had been and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a Treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetual and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personal mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments of Absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores postea illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountains and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains For though Christ also ordained the LXXII yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolical authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not
most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness and Trophimus of Arles in France for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastoral supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of verse 18. Ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for Saint Paul sent for him a little before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain by any intimation of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more than probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought And the case was equal here for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equal provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopal to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publick and authorized facts of Catholick Christendom * For consider we Is it imaginable that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves and not ea quae sunt Jesu Christi to erect a government of their own devising not ordained by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolical superstructure which if it was at all was a part of our Masters will which whosoever knew and observed not was to be beaten with many stripes Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity without evidence of Miracle and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity make an Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy than what the Master of the Family hath ordained destroyes all those relations of mutual dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family * Is it imaginable that all those glorious Martyrs that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions and Canons Apostolical that so long as that Ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force they would rather die than eat a strangled Hen or a Pudding for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina that they would be so sedulous in contemning the Government that Christ left for his Family and erect another * To what purpose were all their watchings their Banishments their fears their fastings their penances and formidable austerities and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes of what excellency or avail if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgraceful by dolorous deaths to be set before a Tribunal to give account of their universal neglect and contemning of Christ's last Testament in so great an affair as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendom should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliver be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publick affair and for matter of order of the most general concernment is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance of the impregnable permanence of the Church against the gates of Hell of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth if she be guilty of so grand an error as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level or appointed others to sit in it than whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retained that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamly negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairly venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis SECT XXIII Who first distinguished Names used before in common THE First thing done in Christendom upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common For in holy Scripture all the names of Clerical offices were given to the superiour Order and particularly all offices and parts and persons designed in any imployment of the sacred Priesthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore lest the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdom of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations For the Apostles did know by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Episcopacy saith S. Clement and so it did in the Church of Corinth as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supream ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in were called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Peter the Apostle the Elders or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter do intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himself to wit those to whom the Regiment of the Church was committed the Bishops of Asia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and Bithynia that is to Timothy to Tychicus to Sosipater to the Angels of the Asian Churches and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Feed the Flock of God as Bishops or being Bishops and Overseers over it And that to Rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny that had no rule at all * The mere Presbyters I deny not but are included in this admonition for as their office is involved in the Bishops office the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too so is his duty also in the Bishops so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But again * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint John the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gaius The Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harm though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolical men in the Colledge at Jerusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principal men ruling men and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that rule well by Presbyters are meant Bishops to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus as appears in the former discourse The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one place expounds the other for they are both ad idem and speak of Elders of the same Church * 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self is almost 1100 years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law De consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not always go together and also several Orders had several manners of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they
probability for doing it is a very great crime and of dangerous consequence It was the greatest aggravation of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they did falsly pretend and belye the Holy Spirit which crime besides that it dishonours the Holy Ghost to make him the President of imperfect and illiterate rites the Author of confusion and indeliberate Discourses and the Parent of such productions which a wise person would blush to own it also intitles him to all those Doctrines which either Chance or Design shall expose to the people in such prayers to which they entitle the holy Spirit as the Author and immediate Dictator So that if they please he must not only own their follies but their impieties too and how great disreputation this is to the Spirit of Wisdom of Counsel and of Holiness I wish they may rather understand by Discourse than by Experiment Sect. 37. BUT let us look a little further into the mystery and see what is meant in Scripture by praying with the spirit In what sence the holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Prayer I have already shewn viz. by the same reason as he is the Spirit of faith of prudence of knowledge of understanding and the like because he gives us assistances for the acquiring of these graces and furnishes us with revelations by way of object and instruction But praying with the Spirit hath besides this other sences also in Scripture I find in one place that we then pray with the Spirit when the Holy Ghost does actually excite us to desires and earnest tendencies to the obtaining our holy purpose when he prepares our hearts to pray when he enkindles our desires gives us zeal and devotion charity and fervour spiritual violence and holy importunity This sence is also in the latter part of the objected words of S. Paul Rom. 8. The Spirit it self maketh Intercession for us with groanings And indeed this is truly a praying with the Spirit but this will do our Reverend Brethren of the Assembly little advantage as to the present Question For this Spirit is not a Spirit of utterance not at all clamorous in the ears of the people but cries aloud in the ears of God with groans unutterable so it follows and only He that searcheth the heart he understandeth the meaning of the Spirit This is the Spirit of the Son which God hath sent into our hearts not into our tongues whereby we cry Abba Father Gal. 4.6 And this is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for mental prayer which is properly and truly praying by the Spirit Sect. 38. ANOTHER praying with the Spirit I find in that place of St. Paul from whence this expression is taken and commonly used I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also It is generally supposed that Saint Paul relates here to a special and extraordinary gift of Prayer which was indulg'd to the Primitive Bishops and Priests the Apostles and Rulers of Churches and to some other Persons extraordinarily of being able to compose Prayers pious in the matter prudent in the composure devout in the forms expressive in the language and in short useful to the Church and very apt for devotion and serving to her Religion and necessities I believe that such a gift there was and this indulged as other issues of the Spirit to some persons upon special necessities by singular dispensation as the Spirit knew to be most expedient for the present need and the future instruction This I believe not because I find sufficient testimony that it was so or any evidence from the words now alledged but because it was reasonable it should be so and agreeable to the other proceedings of the Holy Ghost For although we account it an easie matter to make prayers and we have great reason to give thanks to the Holy Ghost for it who hath descended so plentifully upon the Church hath made plentiful revelation of all the publick and private necessities of the world hath taught us how to pray given rules for the manner of address taught us how to distinguish spiritual from carnal things hath represented the vanity of worldly desires the unsatisfyingness of earthly possessions the blessing of being denied our impertinent secular and indiscreet requests and hath done all this at the beginning of Christianity and hath actually stirred up the Apostles and Apostolical men to make so many excellent Forms of Prayer which their Successors did in part retain and in part imitate till the conjunct wisdom of the Church saw her Offices compleat regular and sufficient So that now every man is able to make something of Forms of Prayer for which ability they should do well to pay their Eucharist to the Holy Ghost and not abuse the gift to vanity or schism yet at the first beginning of Christianity till the holy Spirit did fill all things they found no such plenty of Forms of Prayer and it was accounted a matter of so great consideration to make a Form of Prayer that it was thought a fit work for a Prophet or the Founder of an Institution And therefore the Disciples of John asked of him to teach them how to pray and the Disciples of Christ did so too For the Law of Moses had no Rules to instruct the Synagogue how to pray and but that Moses and David and Asaph and some few of the Prophets more left forms of Prayer which the Spirit of God inspired them withall upon great necessities and great mercy to that people they had not known how to have composed an Office for the daily service of the Temple without danger of asking things needless vain or impious such as were the prayers in the Roman Closets that he was a good man that would not own them Et nihil arcano qui roget ore Deos. Pulchra Laverna Da mihi fallere da justum sanctúmque videri Noctem peccatis fraudibus objice nubem But when the Holy Ghost came down in a full breath and a mighty wind he filled the breasts and tongues of men and furnished the first Christians not only with abilities enough to frame excellent devotions for their present Offices but also to become precedents for Liturgie to all Ages of the Church the first being imitated by the second and the second by the third till the Church be setled in peace and the Records transmitted with greater care and preserved with less hazard the Church chose such Forms whose Copies we retain at this day Sect. 39. NOW since it was certain that all ages of the Church would look upon the first Fathers in Christ and Founders of Churches as precedents or Tutors and Guides in all the parts of their Religion and that prayer with its several parts and instances is a great portion of the Religion the Sacraments themselves being instruments of grace and effectual in genere orationis it is very reasonable to think that the Apostolical
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
is most plentiful Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio dicit Petro c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops and the Church is built upon them and every action of the Church is to be governed by them and this is founded upon a Divine law Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contra nos audere Diaconi à quibus fiunt We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirms there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelical power did institute that calling for the modus of whose election it took such particular order S. Ignatius long before him speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Jesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearful thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceivable God For this contumely relates not to man but to God So S. Ignatius which could not be true were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them This is plain and dogmatical I would be loth to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speak half so much against us But it is a general resolve and no private opinion For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his ascension into Heaven he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops But long before him Hegesippus going to Rome and by the way calling in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit Prophetae indicaverunt Et Dominus Statuit All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed All things therefore both of doctrine and discipline and therefore the ordinations themselves too Further yet and it is worth observing there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated that the order of Bishops did come from God S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis certum a true and certain or indeleble character secundùm placitum Patris according to the will of God the Father And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit God from whom all good things do come did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop And again Honor igitur Fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares c. And a little after Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence and is by God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasce oves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have pastoral or Episcopal authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were divers others there present therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councils of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sextus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. John although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made James sirnamed the Just Bishop of Jerusalem and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. James also his Predecessor The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum c. Just as Anacletus before S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter James and Iohn were his Ordainers But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records S. Cyrill of Jerusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solum sed etiam Apostolis Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and again he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocess S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus There are many more testimonies to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Council of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself If by Ordinatus he means designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turn for the present But either in one sence or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó S. James had first the Episcopal chair for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we add what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it follows from the premisses and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have been But that this also was not a temporary business and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium Iacobi traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first Iames and next Simeon Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est SECT XIV S. Timothy at Ephesus THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture For S. Paul imposed hands on him that 's certain Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum By the laying on of my hands That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him First He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publick necessities of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional And when it was his cure was supplied by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife c. Thirdly S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young For a Bishop must be no striker But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
faith of the Primitive Church And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Lukes story for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero's reign five or six years before the death of S. Paul Igitur Neronis primo Imperii anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it in stead of octavo Sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Bishoprick for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priests in Alexandria besides him and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters is not so soon to be contrived But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs Quod post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark * And Philo the Jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria called by the inhabitants Cultores and Cultrices The worshippers Addit autem adhuc his saith Eusebius quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua vel quae sit supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia a height above all imployments established at Alexandria and how soon that was is soon computed for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time and was Embassador to the Emperor Caius and survived S. Mark a little But S. Jerome will strike up this business A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri Aegypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant And again Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus The same is witnessed by S. Gregory Nicephorus and divers others Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts as innumerable multitudes of things more and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter nothing of S. James the son of Thaddaeus nor of Alpheus but the Martyrdom of one of them nothing of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas of Simon zelotes of S. Jude the Apostle scarce any of their names recorded yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records which all Christendom hitherto so far as we know hath acknowledged as authentick and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical being done in the Apostles times to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death as here at Alexandria first S. Mark then Anianus made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria for Bishop he was most certainly is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit gloriosè consummavit Martyrium S. Peter sent him into Aegypt to found a Church and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment and that could be no less than the ordinary power Apostolical SECT XVII S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome BUT in the Church of Rome the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and their successions during the times of the Apostles is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit Succedit autem ei Anacletus post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui vidit ipsos Apostolos contulit cum eis cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum traditionem ante oculos haberet So S. Irenaeus Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus Linus vero Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles as of Tertullian Optatus S. Augustin and S. Hierom. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish and be tedious in a thing so evident and known SECT XVIII S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others S. JOHN ordained S. Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant So Tertullian The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarp was placed there by Saint John as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo c. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome and Eusebius Quoniam autem valde longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare to use S. Irenaeus his expression It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands as Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens Caius at Thessalonica Archippus at Colosse Onesimus at Ephesus Anâ—ipas at Pergamus Epaphroditus at Philippi Crescens among the Gaules Evodias at Antioch Sosipater at Iconium Erastus in Macedonia Trophimus at Arles Jason at Tarsus Silas at Corinth Onesiphorus at Colophon Quartus at Berytus Paul the Proconsul at Narbona besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture as these fore-cited are so many as Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their Acts and Ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first Ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick and their adversaries who could not do so to be Heretical This also is very evident and of great consideration in the first Ages while their tradition was clear and evident and not so be-pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
wanting or amiss to silence vain prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordain elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithful for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already proved and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unless they could be their own superiours SECT XXI Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters BUT a Council or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they ruled without him This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom which I will set down here that we may leave the Sun without a cloud S. Jerome's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himself most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quâ—d facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordain a Bishop does which is a clear difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non faciat not non facit that a Priest may not must not do that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary and by actual indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and original right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had been quickly answered if the Question had only been de facto for the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters and this was by custom and in fact at least S. Hierome says it and the Bishop took so much power to himself that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complained of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference That then if Saint Hierome says true being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate * Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needs a proof and this he undertook Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects An identity at least of Names for else it had been wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a business next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certain if he stand to his own principles This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction I know not certainly which he means for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of Jurisdiction Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he means the first viz. that of Names it is well enough there is no harm done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so far as may be guessed by his words a parity and
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops unless it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the General address which in all fair deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearly show that the confusion of names of Episcopus and Presbyter such as it is in Scripture is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture for the indistinction of Offices for even the names in Scripture it self are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop and Apostle is often called a Presbyter as in the instances above But we will consider those places of Scripture which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name to confusion of things and shew that they neither enterfere upon the main Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints which are in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to chuse this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could * not be and yet Saint Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the Church of Philippi * and therefore must mean mere * Presbyters so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superiour Order of the Clergy Bishops and Priests and that he speaks plurally he may besides the Bishops in the Church comprehend under their name the Presbyters too for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office and order the inferiour under the superiour the lesser within the greater for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order and is not only inclusively in it but derivative from it the same name may comprehend both persons because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both And in this sence it is if it be at all that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops * 2. Why may not Bishops be understood properly For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church It can neither be proved from Scripture nor Antiquity if it were denyed For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch might do all that Presbyters could and much more And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply and a Bishop can it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter than that there was no Bishop And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be only meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sence and yet no more Bishops in one Diocess than one of a fixt residence for in that sence is Saint Chrysostom and the Fathers to be understood in their Commentaries on this place affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop but then take this along that it was not then unusual in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary Residentiaries but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority as in the Churches of Jerusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it self if I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus Titus Demas Polybius omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo unde haec vobis scripsi saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon So that many Bishops we see might be at Philippi and many were actually there long after Saint Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sence Because there could not be more Bishops than one in a Diocess No By what Law If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times that hinders not but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times If by a Law in the Apostles times then we have obtained the main Question by the shift and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters And then let this Objection be admitted how it will and do its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had divers Bishopricks under it and Saint Paul writing to the Church of Philippi wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit and therefore might well salute many Bishops though writing to one Metropolis and this is the more probable if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopis Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of Cum Episcopis Diaconis to Saint Paul and Saint Timothy intimating that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from Saint Paul and Saint Timothy with â—he Bishops and Deacons so that the reading must be thus Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons to all the Saints at Philippi c. Cum Episcopis Diaconis hoc est cum Paulo Timotheo qui utique Episcopi erant simul significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei Ad plebem enim scribit Nam si Episcopis scriberet Diaconis ad personas eorum scriberet loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat non duobus vel tribus sicut ad Titum Timotheum * 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians which may give another light to this speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision which no man imagines of what interest soever he be it follows then that Bishops and Deacons are no more but Mâ—jores and Minores Sacerdotes in both places for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I think it will easily be shewn in Scripture that the word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters than to those Ministers whiâ—h now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now again to
the main observation * Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for Saint Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church Orders and Officers gives directions first for Bishops then for Deacons Where are the Presbyters in the interim Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons They may as well be in one as the other for Diaconus is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy than Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never used in the new Testament for any but such as had the care regiment and supra-vision of a Church but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus yet it is not because the Offices and Orders are one but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the Principal observation here intended Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus Sacerdos est hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium saith Saint Ambrose So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop he intends to qualifie Presbyters also then it is principally intended for a Bishop and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension This only by the way because this place is also abused to other issues To be sure it is but a vain dream that because Presbyter is not nam'd that therefore it is all one with a Bishop when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole or the inferiour within the superiour the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more or else it may be as well intended in the word Deacons and rather than the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plural and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose ministration ye believed and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Titus Saint Paul describes the office of a Bishop and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office and why I pray may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus or else why may not Deacons be confounded and be all one with Bishop as well as Presbyter It will it must be so if this argument were any thing else but an aery and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single and meer Presbyter is called a Bishop but may be often found that a Bishop nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter as in the instances above and therefore since this communication of Names is only in descension by reason of the involution or comprehension of Presbyter within Episcopus but never in ascension that is an Apostle or a Bishop is often called Presbyter and Deacon and Prophet and Pastor and Doctor but never retrò that a meer Deacon or a meer Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meer Presbyters above their Stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability than Episcopus and Presbyter For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons I gave one Instance of this before but there are very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of Saint Matthias when he succeeded Judas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Saint Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Saint Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye believed Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfil thy Deaconship * Add to this that there is no word or designation of any Clerical office but is given to Bishops and Apostles The Apostles are called Prophets Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaën and Paul and Barnabas and then they are called Pastors too and indeed hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Pastors â—piritus S. posuit vos Episcopos Pascere Ecclesiam Dei Whereupon the Greek Scholiast expounds the word Pastor to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that Saint Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls it hath obtained in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors and Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were settled and Bishops fixt upon their several Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those Names which did design temporary Offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Thus far the names were common viz. in the sence above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every Order it s own Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be supposed at first for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificial and imposed sence Vse which is the Master of language must rule us in this affair and Vse is not contracted but in some process and descent of time * For at first Christendom it self wanted a name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
in those places where the Bishops are exauctorated and no where else that I know but amongst those men that have complying designs the word Pastor is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited subordinate sence and by way of participation just as they may be called Angels when the Bishop is the Angel and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor and so they are called Pastores ovium in Saint Cyprian but never are they called Pastores simply or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600. years in the Church and I think 800. more And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave to avoid vocum Novitates because there is never any affectation of new words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom but there is some design in the thing too to make an innovation and of this we have had long warning in the new use of the word Pastor SECT XXVI And Doctor IF Bishops were the Pastors then Doctors also it was the observation which S. Augustin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and Doctors So the Church hath learn'd to speak In the Greeks Councel of Carthage it was decreed that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor of their own that is a Bishop but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocess to whom formerly they gave obedience and the title of the Chapter is that the parts of the Diocess without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not have another Bishop He who in the Title is called Bishop in the Chapter is called the Doctor And thus also Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers and Doctors Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus Doctoris est saith Saint Ambrose speaking of the eminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy The same also is to be seen in Saint Austin Sedulius and divers others I deny not but it is in this appellative as in divers of the rest that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called Doctors for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop and no where expresly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture but yet because in all Churches it was by licence of the Bishop that Presbyters did Preach if at all and in some Churches the Bishop only did it particularly of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen therefore it was that the Presbyter in the language of the Church was not but the Bishop was often called Doctor of the Church SECT XXVII And Pontifex THE next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops is Pontifex and Pontificatus for Episcopacy Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum Episcopis Pontificatus munera assignavimus said the Apostles as 1. Saint Clement reports Pontificale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint John the Apostle wore in his Forehead as an Ensign of his Apostleship a gold plate or medal when he was in Pontificalibus in his Pontifical or Apostolical habit saith Eusebius 2. De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit definitio SS Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... si Pontifices voluerint ut cum eis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople 3. Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum Petrum Pontificatum tenebat saith 4. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus Apud Antiochiani vero Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenebat saith the same Eusebius 5. And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia that when Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extream age he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you but it was when Narcissus jam senio sessus Pontificatus Ministerio sufficere non possit saith the story 6. Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Prefect that wished him to comply with the Emperour asked him Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam Pontificatum est consequutus He hath an Empire but hath he also a Bishoprick Pontificatus is the word But 7. S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices and particularly gives this account of the present Est igitur Pontificatus ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt c. And a little after Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus Pontificum ordini c. To which agrees 8. S. Isidore in his etymologies Ideo autem Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur quia sacrum dant sicut Episcopi qui licet Sacerdotes sint tamen Pontificatus apicem non habent quia nec Chrismate frontem signant nec Paracletum spiritum dant quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat and in the same chapter Pontifex Princeps Sacerdotum est One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops and that 's Sacerdos Sacerdotum autem bipartitus est ordo say S. Clement and Anacletus for they are Majores and Minores The Majores Bishops the Minores Presbyters for so it is in the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement Episcopis quidem assignavimus attribuimus quae ad Principatum Sacerdotii pertinent Presbyteris vero quae ad Sacerdotium And in S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination and in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signifie Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus Sacerdotium Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop always Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus saith Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unless when there is some distinctive term and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesiae est plebs Sacerdoti adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. Cyprian And that we may know by Sacerdos he means the Bishop his next words are Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt Sacerdotem Dei agnoscentes contestantes * Eusebius reckoning some of the
himself hath not can he give what himself hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Vox est Aerii haeretici Vnus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broached by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanced by many of the Church of Rome SECT XXXII For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters As of Ordination FOR to clear the distinction of order it is evident in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition Apostolical The first and second Canons of Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop and one Bishop should ordain a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain a Bishop is S. Dionysius affirms Sacerdotem non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius To this we may add as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rural Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess they must not ordain Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is anothers Diocess and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopal Ordination at first but not Episcopal Jurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manus impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had countrey Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively to wit that each Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more than village Priests and then this caution had been impertinent * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordain any but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to do it if these should do it the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did or that they might go beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Add to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not been their bridle The sum of the Canon is this With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might ordain for themselves had Episcopal ordination but without license they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc particulari not in order but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the City Presbyters might not ordain neither with nor without license for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitatis unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catholick Church Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practice Apostolical is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church and exigence of Catholick custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of
Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and in the Imperial constitutions Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in commission or practice or penalty all this while I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffered to take it away This Council was held in the year 657 and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West but for almost 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtained that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they do but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice * I know not what can be said against it I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters If Bishops then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order which because it was as I observed before against the practice of Christendom will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius I answer that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one or the other for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordained was ordained but to be a Reader and that was no Order of Divine institution no gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore might be dispensed by one or more by Bishops or Presbyters and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost and of Divine ordinance and therefore this although I have seen it once pretended yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practice of Primitive Antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop What think we of the reformed Churches 1. For my part I know not what to think The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all that they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church we found these men zealous in it we thanked God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations not thinking what would follow upon our selves But now it is come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church than what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sin in us If they did ill from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands as appears by comparing the two Epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signifie a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the fouth Council of Carthage much less do it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity than erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else lose the being of a Church for want of Episcopal ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and great learning does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany England France and Italy that joyned in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would fain learn that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopal ordination as both their friends and their enemies bear
been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon And Vigor Episcopalis and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoyns calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis to the top or height of Episcopacy Apices Principes omnium so Optatus calls Bishops the Chief and Head of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prelate or Prefect of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Governs the Church in that place * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat Saint Sylvester the Bishop held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose Honor Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers and are made their Subjects and in the next Chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop c. * The other is of S. Hierom Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all there will be as many Schisms as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of them then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority and all the whole Diocess are his subjects viz. in regimine Spirituali SECT XXXV Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity BUT from words let us pass to things For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience Universal obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin again with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gain by it for the more Primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man But to our business S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis So the Latin of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye do you should attempt nothing without your Bishop And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo in nullo illi refragari It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop and in nothing to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam sic vos sine Episcopo nec Diaconus nec Laiconus nec Laicus Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium quod enim tale est Deo inimicum Here is obedience universal both in respect of things and persons and all this no less than absolutely necessary For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things saying of my self I can do nothing so nor you without your Bishop whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Layman Let nothing please you which the Bishop
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
it I do not say without leave but I say they had leave given them when the Bishop sent them to officiate in a Village with ordinary or temporary residence as it is to this day when the Bishop institutes to a particular charge he also gives power hoc ipso of officiating in that place So that at first when they did officiate in places by temporary missions then they were to have leave but this license was also temporary but when they were fixt upon ordinary charges they might not officiate without leave but then they had an ordinary leave given them in traditione subditorum and that was done in subsidium Muneris Episcopalis because it was that part of the Bishops charge which he could not personally attend for execution of the Minor offices and therefore concredited it to a Presbyter but if he was present a new leave was necessary because as the power always was in the Bishop so now the execution also did return to him when he was there in person himself if he listed might officiate All this is excellently attested in the example of S. Austin of whom Possidonius in his life reports that being but a Presbyter Valerius the Bishop being a Greek born and not well spoken in the Latin tongue and so unfit for publick orations Eidem Presbytero viz. to Austin potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesiâ Evangelium praedicandi ac frequentissimè tractandi contra usum quidem Consuetudinem Africanarum Ecclesiarum He gave leave to Austin then but Presbyter to preach in the Church even while himself was present indeed against the use and Custom of the African Churches And for this Act of his he suffered soundly in his report * For the case was thus In all Africa ever since the first spring of the Arian heresie the Church had then suffered so much by the preaching of Arius the Presbyter that they made a Law not to suffer any Presbyter to preach at all at least in the Mother Church and in the Bishops presence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Socrates Thence came this Custom in the African Churches But because Valerius saw S. Austin so able and himself for want of Latin so unfit he gave leave to Austin to preach before him against the custom of the African Churches But he adds this reason for his excuse too it was not indeed the custom of Africa but it was of the Oriental Churches For so Possidonius proceeds Sed ille vir venerabilis ac providus in orientalibus Ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens in the Levant it was usual for Bishops to give Presbyters leave to preach Dummodo factitaretur à Presbytero quod à se Episcopo impleri minime posse cernebat which determines us fully in the business For this leave to do offices was but there to be given where the Bishop himself could not fulfil the offices which shows the Presbyters in their several charges whether of temporary mission or fixt residence to be but Delegates and Vicars of the Bishop admitted in partem Solicitudinis to assist the Bishop in his great charge of the whole Diocess Against this it is objected out of S. Hierom and it is recorded by Gratian Ecce ego dico praesentibus Episcopis suis atque adstantibus in altari Presbyteros posse Sacramenta conficere Behold I say that Presbyters may minister Sacraments in presence of the Bishop So Gratian quotes it indeed but S. Hierome says the express contrary unless we all have false copies For in S. Hierome it is not Ecce ego dico but Nec ego dico He does not say it is lawful for Presbyters to officiate in the presence of their Bishop Indeed S. Hierom is angry at Rusticus Bishop of Narbona because he would not give leave to Presbyters to preach nor to bless c. This perhaps it was not well done but this makes not against the former discourse for though it may be fit for the Bishop to give leave the Church requiring it still more and more in descent of ages and multiplication of Christians and Parishes yet it is clear that this is not to be done without the Bishops leave for it is for this very thing that S. Hierome disputes against Rusticus to shew he did amiss because he would not give his Presbyters license * And this he also reprehends in his Epistle ad Nepotianum Pessimae consuetudinis est in quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui That Presbyters might not be suffered to preach in presence of the Bishop that was an ill custom to wit as things then stood and it was mended presently after for Presbyters did preach in the Bishops presence but it was by license from their Ordinary For so Possidonius relates that upon this act of Valerius before mentioned Postea currente volante hujusmodi famâ bono praecedente exemplo accepta ab Episcopis potestate Presbyteri nonnulli coram Episcopis populis tractare coeperunt verbum Dei By occasion of this precedent it came to pass that some Presbyters did preach to the people in the Bishops presence having first obtained faculty from the Bishop so to do And a little after it became a custom from a general faculty and dispensation indulged to them in the second Council of Vase Now if this evidence of Church practice be not sufficient to reconcile us to S. Hierome let him then first be reconciled to himself and then we are sure to be helped For in his dialogue against the Luciferians his words are these Cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus eminens detur potestas tot efficientur Schismata quot sunt Sacerdotes Inde venit ut sine Episcopi missione neque Presbyter neque Diaconus jus habeant baptizandi Because the Bishop hath an eminent power and this power is necessary thence it comes that neither Presbyter nor Deacon may so much as baptize without the Bishops leave ** This whole discourse shews clearly not only the Bishops to be superiour in jurisdiction but that they have sole jurisdiction and the Presbyters only in substitution and vicaridge SECT XXXVIII Reserving Church-goods to Episcopal dispensation ** DIVERS other acts there are to attest the superiority of the Bishops jurisdiction over Priests and Deacons as that all the goods of the Church were in the Bishops sole disposing and as at first they were laid at the Apostles feet so afterwards at the Bishops So it is in the 41 Canon of the Apostles so it is in the Council of Gangra and all the world are excluded from intervening in the dispensation without express delegation from the Bishop as appears in the seventh and eighth Canons and that under pain of an anathema by the holy Council * And therefore when in success of time some Patrons that had founded Churches and endowed them thought that the dispensation of those lands did not belong to the Bishop of this
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
us And first Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary even to the being and constitution of a Church That runs high but we must follow our leaders S. Ignatius is express in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcopo sacerdotibus Qui vero foris est hic is est qui sine Episcopo Sacerdote Diacono quicquam agit ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam infideli deterior est He that is within the Altar that is within the communion of the Church he is pure for he obeys the Bishop and the Priests But he that is without that is does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel Necesse itaque est quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis It is necessary that what ever ye doe ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse than an Infidel The same also he affirms again Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi qui vero ab illo declinant cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur hi cum illis excidentur All they that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them If then we will be Christs servants we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop It is the condition of Christianity We are not Christians else So is the intimation of S. Ignatius As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Hence is it that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued so that the Church hath its being or constitution by Bishops and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit miror c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God I wonder any man should question it c. And therefore as in all buildings the foundation being gone the fabrick falls so if ye take away Bishops the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer be called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata pastori suo Grex adhaerens The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyned Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt c. As a Bishop is in the Church so the Church is in the Bishop and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good if they communicate in conventicles and forsake their Bishop And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident and zealous for a Bishop that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution than to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholick faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council and having considered of the command of the Tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos inveniebant promotione It was full of bravery and Christian sprite The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God rather than man and to consecrate Bishops in all places hoping the King would be appeased or if not yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome They did so Fit repente communis assumptio and they all strived who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might go to heaven though persecuted under the conduct of a Bishop they knew without him the ordinary passage was obstructed Pius the first Bishop of Rome and Martyr speaking of them that calumniate and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous they add saith he evil to evil and grow worse non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit in templum Dei Not considering that the Church of God doth consist or is establisht in Bishops and grows up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity SECT XLVI For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this business to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an unmatchable power be not given to him tot efficicientur schismata quot Sacerdotes So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved and we know that unity and being are of equal extent and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop then where there is no Bishop no pretence to a Church and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick For unity which the Fathers press so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos
dirimere sed Vnimini Episcopo subjecti Deo per illum in Christo saith S. Ignatius Let nothing divide you but be united to your Bishop being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop And it is his conge to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Jesu Christo in quo manete perunitatem Dei Episcopi Farewell in Christ Jesus in whom remain by the Vnity of God and of the Bishop Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo Episcopo ut Ecclesia à Domino Jesu Dominus à Patre suo ut omnia per Vnitatem consentiant Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop as the Church on Christ and Christ on God that all things may consent in Vnity * Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quà m inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur Hence come Schisms hence spring Heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed and admitted alone to be the high Priest alone to be the Judge The same S. Cyprian repeats again and by it we may see his meaning clearer Qui vos audit me audit c. Inde enim haereses schismata obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresie and Schism And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons that any Man should have any meetings or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop that if any man proved delinquent in this particular he was punished with the highest censures as appears in the 32. Canon of the Apostles in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch and the great Council of Chalcedon all which I have before cited The sum is this The Bishop is the band and ligature of the Churches Unity and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodorets expression is a Symbol of faction and he that separates is a Schismatick But how if the Bishop himself be a heretick or schismatick May we not then separate Yes if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops but then he is sure to be deposed too and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop For till he be declared so his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his Diocess lest they by so doing become their Judges Judge and when he is declared so no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop for the heretick or schismatick must be no longer Bishop * But let the case be what it will be no separation from a Bishop ut sic can be lawful and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy That is the quintessence and spirit of schism and a direct overthrow to Christianity and a confronting of a Divine institution SECT XLVII And Hereticks BUT is it not also heresie Aerius was condemned for heresie by the Catholick Church The heresie from whence the Aerians were denominated was sermo furiosus magis quà m humanae conditionis dicebat Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum nihil dissert hic ab illo A mad and unmanly heresie to say that a Bishop and a Priest are all one So Epiphanius Assumpsit autem Ecclesia in toto mundo assensus factus est antequam esset Aerius qui ab ipso appellantur Aeriani And the good Catholick Father is so angry at the heretick Aerius that he thinks his name was given him by Providence and he is called Aerius aeriis spiritibus pravitatis for he was possessed with an unclean spirit he could never else have been the inventer of such heretical pravity S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of hereticks and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue that he is no Catholick Christian that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines amongst which this is one of the principal Philastrius does as much for him But against this it will be objected First That heresies in the Primitive Catalogues are of a large extent and every dissent from a publick opinion was esteemed heresie 2dly Aerius was called heretick for denying prayer for the dead And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop and a Presbyter as in that other for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius and Saint Austin Thirdly He was never condemned by any Council and how then can he be called heretick I answer that dissent from a publick or a received opinion was never called heresie unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholick doctrine For the Fathers many of them did so as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of hereticks but such things only set them down there which were either directly opposite to Catholick belief though in minoribus articulis or to a holy life 2dly It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions and heretical But I cannot help it if they did let him and them agree it they are able to answer for themselves But yet they accused him also of Arianism and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresie because the Fathers called him heretick in one particular upon a wrong principal We may as well say this as deny the other 3dly He was not condemned by any Council No. For his heresie was ridiculous and a scorn to all wise men as Epiphanius observes and it made no long continuance neither had it any considerable party * But yet this is certain that Epiphanius and Philastrius and S. Austin called this opinion of Aerius a heresy and against the Catholick belief And themselves affirm that the Church did so and then it would be considered that it is but a sad imployment to revive old heresies and make them a piece of the New religion And yet after all this if I mistake not although Aerius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Council yet certainly the one half of his error is condemn'd for heresie in one of the four General Councils viz. the first Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call all them hereticks whom the Ancient Church hath condemn'd and whom we shall anathematize Will not Aerius come under one of these titles for a condemn'd heretick Then see forward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is enough for Aerius and all
for the other also without any sensible error It is not the word it is the ambitious seeking of a temporal principality as the issue of Christianity and an affix of the Apostolate that Christ interdicted his Apostles * And if we mark it our Blessed Saviour points it out himself The Princes of the Nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exercise authority over them and are called Benefactors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It shall not be so with you Not so how Not as the Princes of the Gentiles for theirs is a temporal Regiment your Apostolate must be Spiritual They rule as Kings you as fellow servants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will be first amongst you let him be your Minister or Servant It seems then among Christs Disciples there may be a Superiority when there is a Minister or servant But it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that this greatness doth consist it must be in doing the greatest service and ministration that the superiority consists in But more particularly it must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must not be as the Princes of the Gentiles but it must be as the son of man so Christ sayes expresly And how was that why he came to Minister and to serve and yet in the lowest act of his humility the washing his Disciples feet he told them ye call me Lord and Master and ye say well for so I am It may be so with you Nay it must be as the son of Man But then the being called Rabbi or Lord nay the being Lord in spirituali Magisterio regimine in a spiritual superintendency and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may stand with the humility of the Gospel and office of Ministration So that now I shall not need to take advantage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to rule with more than a political Regiment even with an absolute and despotick and is so used in holy Scripture viz. in sequiorem partem God gave authority to man over the creatures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in the Septuagint and we know the power that man hath over beasts is to kill and to keep alive And thus to our blessed Saviour the power that God gave him over his enemies is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this we know how it must be exercised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a rod of iron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall break them in pieces like a potters vessel That 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it shall not be so with you But let this be as true as it will The answer needs no way to rely upon a Criticism It is clear that the form of Regiment only is distinguished not all Regiment and authority taken away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not as the Kings of the Gentiles but as the son of man so must your Regiment be for sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father hath sent me even so send I you It must be a government not for your Impery but for the service of the Church So that it is not for your advancement but the publick Ministery that you are put to rule over the Houshold * And thus the Fathers express the authority and regiment of Bishops Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum non ad Principatum vocatur sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae saith Origen And Saint Hierom Episcopi Sacerdotes se esse noverint non Dominos And yet Saint Hierom himself writing to Saint Austin calls him Domine verè sancte suscipiende Papa Forma Apostolica haec est Dominatio interdicitur indicitur Ministratio It is no Principality that the Apostles have but it is a Ministery a Ministery in chief the Officers of which Ministration must govern and we must obey They must govern not in a temporal Regiment by vertue of their Episcopacy but in a Spiritual not for honour to the Rulers so much as for benefit and service to the subject So Saint Austin Nomen est operis non honoris ut intelligat se non esse Episcopum qui praeesse dilexerit non prodesse And in the fourteenth Chapter of the same Book Qui imperant serviunt iis rebus quibus videntur Imperare Non enim dominandi cupidine imperant sed officio consulendi nec principandi superbiâ sed providendi misericordiâ And all this is intimated in the prophetical visions where the Regiment of Christ is design'd by the face of a man and the Empire of the world by Beasts The first is the Regiment of a Father the second of a King The first spiritual the other secular And of the fatherly authority it is that the Prophet sayes Instead of Fathers thou shalt have Children whom thou mayest make Princes in all lands This say the Fathers is spoken of the Apostles and their Successors the Bishops who may be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Princes or Rulers of Churches not Princes of Kingdoms by vertue or challenge of their Apostolate But if this Ecclesiastical rule or chiefty be interdicted I wonder how the Presidents of the Presbyters the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Reformed Churches will acquit themselves How will their Superiority be reconciled to the place though it be but temporary For is it a sin if it continues and no sin if it lasts but for a week Or is it lawful to sin and domineer and Lord it over their Brethren for a week together * But suppose it were what will they say that are perpetual Dictators Calvin was perpetual President and Beza till Danaeus came to Geneva even for many years together * But beyond all this how can the Presbytery which is a fixt lasting body rule and govern in causes Spiritual and Consistorial and that over all Princes and Ministers and people and that for ever For is it a sin in Episcopacy to do so and not in the Presbytery If it be lawful here then Christ did not interdict it to the Apostles for who will think that a Presbytery shall have leave to domineer and as they call it now adayes to Lord it over their Brethren when a Colledge of Apostles shall not be suffered to govern But if the Apostles may govern then we are brought to a right understanding of our Saviours saying to the sons of Zebedee and then also their successors the Bishops may do the same If I had any further need of answer or escape it were easie to pretend that this being a particular directory to the Apostles was to expire with their persons So S. Cyprian intimates Apostoli pari fuêre consortio praediti honoris dignitatis and indeed this may be concluding against the Supremacy of S. Peter's Successors but will be no wayes pertinent to impugn Episcopal authority For inter se they might be equal and yet superiour to the Presbyters and the people Lastly It shall not be so with you so
Synodum quòd quidam qui in Clero sunt allecti Propter Lucra Turpia conductores alienarum possessionum fiant saecularia negotia sub curâ suâ suscipiant Dei quidem Ministerium parvipendentes Saecularium verò discurrentes domos Propter Avaritiam patrimoniorum sollicitudinem sumentes Clergy-men were farmers of lands and did take upon them secular imployment for covetous designs and with neglect of the Church These are the things the Councel complain'd of and therefore according to this exigence the following Sanction is to be understood Decrevit itaque hoc Sanctum magnumque Concilium nullum deinceps non Episcopum non Clericum vel Monachum aut possessiones conducere aut negotiis secularibus se immiscere No Bishop no Clergy-man no Monk must farm grounds nor ingage himself in secular business What in none No none Praeter pupillorum si forte leges imponant inexcusabilem curam aut civitatis Episcopus Ecclesiasticarum rerum sollicitudinem habere praecipiat aut Orphanorum viduarum carum quae sine ullâ defensione sunt ac personarum quae maximè Ecclesiastico indigent adjutorio propter timorem Domini causa deposcat This Canon will do right to the Question All secular affairs and bargains either for covetousness or with considerable disturbance of Church-Offices are to be avoided For a Clergy man must not be covetous much less for covetise must he neglect his cure To this purpose is that of the second Councel of Arles Clericus turpis lucri gratiâ aliquod genus negotiationis non exerceat But not here nor at Chalcedon is the prohibition absolute nor declaratory of an inconsistence and incapacity for for all this the Bishop or Clerk may do any office that is in piâ curiâ He may undertake the supra-vision of Widows and Orphans And although he be forbid by the Canon of the Apostles to be a Guardian of Pupils yet it is expounded here by this Canon of Chalcedon for a voluntary seeking it is forbidden by the Apostles but here it is permitted only with si fortè leges imponant if the Law or Authority commands him then he may undertake it That is if either the Emperor commands him or if the Bishop permits him then it is lawful But without such command or licence it was against the Canon of the Apostles And therefore Saint Cyprian did himself severely punish Geminius Faustinus one of the Priests of Carthage for undertaking the executorship of the Testament of Geminius Victor he had no leave of his Bishop so to do and for him of his own head to undertake that which would be an avocation of him from his Office did in Saint Cyprian's Consistory deserve a censure 3. By this Canon of Chalcedon any Clerk may be the Oeconomus or Steward of a Church and dispence her Revenue if the Bishop command him 4. He may undertake the patronage or assistance of any distressed person that needs the Churches aid * From hence it is evident that all secular imployment did not hoc ipso avocate a Clergy-man from his necessary office and duty for some secular imployments are permitted him All causes of piety of charity all occurrences concerning the Revenues of the Church and nothing for covetousness but any thing in obedience any thing I mean of the forenamed instances Nay the affairs of Church Revenues and dispensation of Ecclesiastical Patrimony was imposed on the Bishop by the Canons Apostolical and then considering how many possessions were deposited first at the Apostles feet and afterwards in the Bishops hands we may quickly perceive that a case may occur in which something else may be done by the Bishop and his Clergy besides prayer and preaching 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Ignatius to Saint Polycarpe of Smyrna Let not the Widows be neglected after God do thou take care of them Qui locupletes sunt volunt pro arbitrio quisque suo quod libitum est contribuit quod collectum est apud Praesidem deponitur atque is inde opitulatur Orphanis viduis iisque qui vel morbo vel aliâ de causà egent tum iis qui vincti sunt peregrè advenientibus hospitibus ut uno verbo dicam omnium indigentium Curator est All the Collects and Offerings of faithful people are deposited with the Bishop and thence he dispenses for the relief of the Widows and Orphans thence he provides for travellers and in one word he takes care of all indigent and necessitous people So it was in Justin Martyr's time and all this a man would think requir'd a considerable portion of his time besides his studies and prayer and preaching This was also done even in the Apostles times for first they had the provision of all the goods and persons of the coenobium of the Church at Jerusalem This they themselves administred till a complaint arose which might have prov'd a scandal then they chose seven men men full of the Holy Ghost men that were Priests for they were of the seventy Disciples saith Epiphanius and such men as Preached and Baptized so Saint Stephen and Saint Philip therefore to be sure they were Clergy-men and yet they left their preaching for a time at least abated of the height of the imployment for therefore the Apostles appointed them that themselves might not leave the Word of God and serve Tables plainly implying that such men who were to serve these Tables must leave the Ministery of the Word in some sence or degree and yet they chose Presbyters and no harm neither and for a while themselves had the imployment I say there was no harm done by this temporary Office to their Priestly function and imployment For to me it is considerable If the calling of a Presbyter does not take up the whole man then what inconvenience though his imployment be mixt with secular allay But if it does take up the whole man then it is not safe for any Presbyter ever to become a Bishop which is a dignity of a far greater burden and requires more than a Man 's all if all was requir'd to the function of a Presbyter But I proceed 4. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Bishops and Clerks do prohibit it only in gradu impedimenti officii Clericalis and therefore when the Offices are supplyed by any of the Order it is never prohibited but that the personal abilities of any man may be imployed for the fairest advantages either of Church or Commonwealth And therefore it is observable that the Canons provide that the Church be not destitute not that such a particular Clerk should there officiate Thus the Councel of Arles decreed Vt Presbyteri sicut hactenus factum est indiscretè per diversa non mittantur loca ne fortè propter eorum absentiam animarum pericula Ecclesiarum in quibus constituti sunt negligantur officia So that here we see 1. That it had been usual to send Priests
found out a remedy for those of old so he will also for the poor misled people of Ireland and will take away the evil minds or the opportunities of the Adversaries hindring the people from Instruction and make way that the Truths we have here taught may approach to their ears and sink into their hearts and make them wise unto Salvation Amen A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND PART I. The INTRODVCTION THE Questions of difference between Our Churches and the Church of Rome have been so often disputed and the evidences on both sides so often produc'd that to those who are strangers to the present constitution of affairs it may seem very unnecessary to say them over again and yet it will seem almost impossible to produce any new matter or if we could it will not be probable that what can be newly alledged can prevail more than all that which already hath been so often urged in these Questions But we are not deterr'd from doing our duty by any such considerations as knowing that the same Medicaments are with success applied to a returning or an abiding Ulcer and the Preachers of God's Word must for ever be ready to put the People in mind of such things which they already have heard and by the same Scriptures and the same Reasons endeavour to destroy their sin or prevent their danger and by the same word of God to exstirpate those errors which have had opportunity in the time of our late disorders to spring up and grow stronger not when the Keepers of the field slept but when they were wounded and their hands cut off and their mouths stopp'd lest they should continue or proceed to do the work of God thoroughly A little warm Sun and some indulgent showers of a softer Rain have made many weeds of erroneous Doctrine to take root greatly and to spread themselves widely and the Bigots of the Roman Church by their late importune boldness and indiscreet forwardness in making Proselytes have but too manifestly declar'd to all the World that if they were rerum potiti Masters of our affairs they would suffer nothing to grow but their own Colocynths and Gourds And although the Natural remedy for this were to take away that impunity upon the account of which alone they do encrease yet because we shall never be Authors of such Counsels but confidently rely upon God the Holy Scriptures right Reason and the most venerable and prime Antiquity which are the proper defensatives of truth for its support and maintenance yet we must not conceal from the People committed to our charges the great evils to which they are tempted by the Roman Emissaries that while the King and the Parliament take care to secure all the publick interests by instruments of their own we also may by the word of our proper Ministery endeavour to stop the progression of such errors which we know to be destructive of Christian Religion and consequently dangerous to the interest of Souls In this procedure although we shall say some things which have not been alwayes plac'd before their eyes and others we shall represent with a fittingness to their present necessities and all with Charity too and zeal for their souls yet if we were to say nothing but what hath been often said already we are still doing the work of God and repeating his voice and by the same remedies curing the same diseases and we only wait for the blessing of God prospering that importunity which is our duty according to the advice of Solomon In the Morning sow thy seed and in the Evening withhold not thy hand for thou knowest not whether shall prosper either this or that or whether they both shall be alike good CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive SECT I. IT was the challenge of Saint Augustine to the Donatists who as the Church of Rome does at this day inclos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands but where Donatus is Co-heir Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets out of the Psalms out of the Gospel it self or out of the Letters of the Apostles Read it thence and we believe it Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith the Old and New Testament the words of Christ and the words of the Apostles For nothing else can be the Foundation of our Faith whatsoever came in after these foris est it belongs not unto Christ To these we also add not as Authors or Finishers but as Helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the Sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God in the Ages next after the Apostles Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private Opinion even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of doctrine and sound words which was at first delivered to the Saints and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosome of Christ and seal'd the true Faith with their lives and with their deaths and by both gave testimony unto Jesus and had from him the Testimony of his Spirit And this method of procedure we now chuse not only because to them that know well how to use it to the Sober and Moderate the Peaceable and the Wise it is the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity Indeed the present Roman Doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best Antiquity and with how ill success their Quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages every inquiring Man may easily discern But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages where secular interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now although things being thus it will be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then
observable that no Heresies are noted signanter in Scripture but such as are great errours practical in materiâ pietatis such whose doctrines taught impiety or such who denyed the coming of Christ directly or by consequence not remote or withdrawn but prime and immediate And therefore in the Code de S. Trinitate fide Catholica Heresy is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wicked Opinion and an ungodly doctrine 3. The first false doctrine we find condemned by the Apostles was the opinion of Simon Magus who thought the Holy Ghost was to be bought with money he thought very dishonourably to the blessed Spirit but yet his followers are rather noted of a vice neither resting in the understanding nor derived from it but wholly practical 'T is simony not heresy though in Simon it was a false opinion proceeding from a low account of God and promoted by his own ends of pride and covetousness The great heresy that troubled them was the doctrine of the necessity of keeping the Law of Moses the necessity of Circumcision against which doctrine they were therefore zealous because it was a direct overthrow to the very end and excellency of Christs coming And this was an opinion most pertinaciously and obstinately maintained by the Jews and had made a Sect among the Galathians and this was indeed wholly in opinion and against it the Apostles opposed two Articles of the Creed which served at several times according as the Jews changed their opinion and left some degrees of their errour I believe in Jesus Christ and I believe the holy Catholick Church For they therefore pressed the necessity of Moses Law because they were unwilling to forgo the glorious appellative of being Gods own peculiar people and that salvation was of the Jews and that the rest of the World were capable of that grace no otherwise but by adoption into their Religion and becoming proselytes But this was so ill a Doctrine as that it overthrew the great benefits of Christ's coming for if they were circumcised Christ profited them nothing meaning this that Christ will not be a Saviour to them who do not acknowledge him for their Law-giver and they neither confess him their Law-giver nor their Saviour that look to be justified by the Law of Moses and observation of legal rites so that this doctrine was a direct enemy to the foundation and therefore the Apostles were so zealous against it Now then that other opinion which the Apostles met at Jerusalem to resolve was but a piece of that opinion for the Jews and Proselytes were drawn off from their lees and sediment by degrees step by step At first they would not endure any should be saved but themselves and their Proselytes Being wrought off from this height by Miracles and preaching of the Apostles they admitted the Gentiles to a possibility of salvation but yet so as to hope for it by Moses Law From which foolery when they were with much ado perswaded and told that salvation was by Faith in Christ not by works of the Law yet they resolved to plow with an Oxe and an Ass still and joyn Moses with Christ not as shadow and substance but in an equal confederation Christ should save the Gentiles if he was helpt by Moses but alone Christianity could not do it Against this the Apostles assembled at Jerusalem and made a decision of the Question tying some of the Gentiles such only who were blended by the Jews in communi patria to observation of such Rites which the Jews had derived by tradition from Noah intending by this to satisfie the Jews as far as might be with a reasonable compliance and condescension the other Gentiles who were unmixt in the mean while remaining free as appears in the liberty S. Paul gave the Church of Corinth of eating Idol Sacrifices expresly against the Decree at Jerusalem so it were without scandal And yet for all this care and curious discretion a little of the leaven still remained All this they thought did so concern the Gentiles that it was totally impertinent to the Jews still they had a distinction to satisfie the letter of the Apostles Decree and yet to persist in their old opinion and this so continued that fifteen Christian Bishops in succession were circumcised even until the destruction of Jerusalem under Adrian as Eusebius reports 4. First By the way let me observe that never any matter of Question in the Christian Church was determined with greater solemnity or more full authority of the Church than this Question concerning Circumcision No less than the whole Colledge of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem and that with a Decree of the highest sanction Visum est spiritui sancto nobis Secondly Either the case of the Hebrews in particular was omitted and no determination concerning them whether it were necessary or lawful for them to be circumcised or else it was involv'd in the Decree and intended to oblige the Jews If it was omitted since the Question was de re necessaria for dico vobis I Paul say unto you If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing it is very remarkable how the Apostles to gain the Jews and to comply with their violent prejudice in behalf of Moses Law did for a time Tolerate their dissent etiam in re alioquin necessariâ which I doubt not but was intended as a precedent for the Church to imitate for ever after But if it was not omitted either all the multitude of the Jews which S. James then their Bishop expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou seest how many myriads of Jews that believe and yet are zelots for the Law and Eusebius speaking of Justus saies he was one ex infinitâ multitudine eorum qui ex circumcisione in Jesum credebant I say all these did perish and their believing in Christ served them to no other ends but in the infinity of their torments to upbraid them with hypocrisie and heresie or if they were saved it is apparent how merciful God was and pitiful to humane infirmities that in a point of so great concernment did pity their weakness and pardon their errors and love their good mind since their prejudice was little less than insuperable and had fair probabilities at least it was such as might abuse a wise and good man and so it did many they did bono animo errare And if I mistake not this consideration S. Paul urged as a reason why God forgave him who was a Persecutor of the Saints because he did it ignorantly in unbelief that is he was not convinced in his understanding of the truth of the way which he persecuted he in the mean while remaining in that incredulity not out of malice or ill ends but the mistakes of humanity and a pious zeal therefore God had mercy on him And so it was in this great Question of circumcision here only was the difference the invincibility of S. Paul's error and
Tradition descends upon us with unequal certainty it would be very unequal to require of us an absolute belief of every thing not written for fear we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolical And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholick and Apostolick and to such a Tradition is required as Irenaeus says the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that beside what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it self and as it is now received even in that there is some variety 8. And therefore there is wholly a mistake in this business for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestness and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamental points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they called to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolical whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they have been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolical Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse nodum oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiastical Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blasphemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamental truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that denied the Son of God the Unity of the Godhead that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them than Scripture was because the publick Doctrine of all the Apostolical Churches was at first more known and famous than many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denied S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consigned by universal testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her self had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions than we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was less as the knowledge of them was ascertained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousness of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was published to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except rituals and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so clear a current that we may see a visible channel and trace it to the Primitive fountains It is said to be a Tradition Apostolical that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be obliged to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proof for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a ritual of which in passing by I shall give that account That suppose this and many more rituals did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolical which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such rituals because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expired and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from bloud and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widows to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all alike necessary or alike indifferent If the former why does no Church observe them If the latter why does the Church of Rome charge upon others the shame of novelty for leaving of some Rites and Ceremonies which by her own practice we are taught to have no obligation in them but the adiaphorous S. Paul gave order that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife The Church of Rome will not allow so much other Churches allow more The Apostles commanded Christians to Fast on Wednesday and Friday as appears in their Canons the Church of Rome Fasts Friday and Saturday and not on Wednesday The Apostes had their Agapae or love Feasts we should believe them scandalous They used a kiss of charity in ordinary addresses the Church of Rome keeps it only in their Masse other Churches quite omit it The Apostles permitted Priests and Deacons to live in conjugal Society as appears in the 5. Can. of the Apostles which to them is an Argument who believe them such and yet the Church of Rome by no means will endure it nay more Michael Medina gives Testimony that of 84. Canons Apostolical which Clemens collected scarce six or eight are observed by the Latine Church and Peresius gives this account of it In illis contineri multa quae temporum corruptione non plenè observantu◠aliis pro temporis materiae qualitate aut obliteratis aut totius
particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them 12. The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertain whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consigned by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in several ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspicious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose 1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere where we may rest the soal of our foot And Nature Scripture and Experience teach the World in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to address our selves to the Church that in a plenary Council and Assembly she may Synodically determine Controversies So that if a General Council have determined a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we do not do ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prays for wisdom we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises and authority of General Councils For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a General Council If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not obliged to search for it or else we are saved by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a General Council So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church but I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as Charity and therefore consists in liberty and choice and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councils now then if they be tied to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certain that they will observe them that they will do all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetual instances and experiments of
from the person to the confession of Peter and declared that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have requited fancy with fancy but for the main point that these two Expositions are inclusive of each other I find no warrant For though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unless it could be shewn by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratìs dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviews it again and in his Retractions leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certain in this Article which had been altogether needless if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have been retracted both were alike true both of them might have been believed But I said the fancy was new and I had reason for it was so unknown till yesterday that even the late Writers of his own side expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else as is to be seen in Marsilius Petrus de Aliaco and the gloss upon Dist. 19. can ità Dominus § ut suprá Which also was the Interpetation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop from whom they learnt the resemblance of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which they have made so many gay discourses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Fifthly But upon condition I may have leave at another time to recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter but his person upon which Christ said he would build his Church or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith and Christ and his Apostles the subjective Christ principally and S. Peter instrumentally and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the See of Rome For upon S. Peter it was built but not alone for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy he reckons not Peter first and then the Apostles but first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And whatsoever is first either is before all things else or at least nothing is before it So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles which also S. Paul expresly averrs I am in nothing inferiour to the very chiefest of the Apostles no not in the very being a Rock and a Foundation and it was of the Church of Ephesus that S. Paul said in particular it was columna firmamentum veritatis that Church was not excluding others for they also were as much as she for so we keep close and be united to the corner-stone although some be master-builders yet all may build and we have known whole Nations converted by Lay-men and women who have been builders so far as to bring them to the corner-stone 8. Sixthly But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the capacities can be with any colour pretended yet what have the Bishops of Rome to doe with this For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop and not as a publick Apostle since this latter is so much the more likely because the great pretence of all seems in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church then its continuance And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop which yet is a farther degree of improbability removed farther from certainty yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of Headship then S. John or any of the Apostles that survived Peter It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle Or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch since that he was at Antioch and preached there we have a Divine Authority but that he did so at Rome at most we have but a humane And if it be replied that because he died at Rome it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his privilege this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome and the Apostolical presidency was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdome the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholick Church And this thing presses the harder because it is held by no mean persons in the Church of Rome that the Bishoprick of Rome and the Papacy are things separable and the Pope may quit that See and sit in another which to my understanding is an Argument that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch is as much supreme by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome both alike that is neither by Divine Ordinance For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church then by the same intention the Succession must be continued in that See and then let the Pope go whither he will the Bishop of Rome must be the Head which they themselves deny and the Pope himself did not believe when in a schism he sat at Avignon And that it was to be continued in the See of Rome it is but offered to us upon conjecture upon an act of providence as they fansy it so ordering it by vision and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphal under the name of Linus in Biblioth PP de passione Petri Pauli A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidental whose purpose was but insinuated the meaning of it but conjectured at and this conjecture so uncertain that it was an imperfect aim at the purpose of an event which whether it was true or no was so uncertain that it is ten to one there was no such matter And yet again another degree of uncertainty is to whom the Bishops of Rome do succeed For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome as S. Peter was there he presided there he preached and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles S. Peter of the Circumcision and of the Jews onely and therefore the converted Jews at Rome might with better reason claim the privilege of S. Peter then the Romans and the Churches in her Communion who do not derive from Jewish
there be cause for it they must be cassated or if there be no sufficient cause the complyings must be so as may best preserve the particulars in conjunction with the publick end which because it is primarily intended is of greatest consideration But the particulars whether of case or person are to be considered occasionally and emergently by the Judges but cannot antecedently and regularly be determined by a Law 9. But this sort of men is of so general pretence that all Laws and all Judges may easily be abused by them Those Sects which are signified by a Name which have a system of Articles a body of profession may be more clearly determined in their Question concerning the lawfulness of permitting their professions and assemblies I shall instance in two which are most troublesome and most disliked and by an account made of these we may make judgement what may be done towards others whose errours are not apprehended of so great malignity The men I mean are the Anabaptists and the Papists SECT XVIII A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists 1. IN the Anabaptists I consider onely their two capital Opinions the one against the Baptism of Infants the other against Magistracy and because they produce different judgements and various effects all their other fancies which vary as the Moon does may stand or fall in their proportion and likeness to these 2. And first I consider their denying Baptism to Infants Although it be a Doctrine justly condemned by the most sorts of Christians upon great grounds of reason yet possibly their defence may be so great as to take off much and rebate the edge of their adversaries assault It will be neither unpleasant nor unprofitable to draw a short scheme of plea for each party the result of which possibly may be that though they be deceived yet they have so great excuse on their side that their errour is not impudent or vincible The Baptism of Infants rests principally and usually upon this discourse 3. When God made a Covenant with Abraham for himself and his posterity into which the Gentiles were reckoned by spiritual adoption he did for the present consign that Covenant with the Sacrament of Circumcision The extent of which Rite was to all his family from the Major domo to the Proselytus domicilio and to infants of eight days old Now the very nature of this Covenant being a covenant of Faith for its formality and with all faithfull people for the object and Circumcision being a seal of this Covenant if ever any Rite do supervene to consign the same Covenant that Rite must acknowledge Circumcision for its type and precedent And this the Apostle tells us in express doctrine Now the nature of a Type is to give some proportions to its successour the Antitype and they both being seals of the same righteousness of faith it will not easily be found where these two seals have any such distinction in their nature or purposes as to appertain to persons of differing capacity and not equally concern all And this argument was thought of so much force by some of those excellent men which were Bishops in the Primitive Church that a good Bishop writ an Epistle to Saint Cyprian to know of him whether or no it were lawfull to baptize Infants before the eighth day because the type of Baptism was ministred in that Circumcision he in his discourse supposing that the first Rite was a direction to the second which prevailed with him so far as to believe it to limit every circumstance 4. And not onely this type but the acts of Christ which were previous to the institution of Baptism did prepare our understanding by such impresses as were sufficient to produce such perswasion in us that Christ intended this ministery for the actual advantage of Infants as well as of persons of understanding For Christ commanded that children should be brought unto him he took them in his arms he imposed hands on them and blessed them and without question did by such acts of favour consign his love to them and them to a capacity of an eternal participation of it And possibly the invitation which Christ made to all to come to him all them that are heavie laden did in its proportion concern Infants as much as others if they be guilty of Original sin and if that sin be a burthen and presses them to any spiritual danger or inconvenience And if they be not yet Christ who was as Tertullian's phrase is nullius poenitentiae debitor guilty of no sin obliged to no repentance needing no purification and no pardon was baptized by S. John's baptism which was the baptism of repentance And it is all the reason in the world that since the grace of Christ is as large as the prevarication of Adam all they who are made guilty by the first Adam should be cleansed by the second But as they are guilty by another man's act so they should be brought to the Font to be purified by others there being the same proportion of reason that by others acts they should be relieved who were in danger of perishing by the act of others And therefore S. Austin argues excellently to this purpose Accommodat illis mater Ecclesia aliorum pedes ut veniant aliorum cor ut credant aliorum linguam ut fateantur ut quoniam quòd aegri sunt alio peccante praegravantur sic cùm sani fiant alio confitente salventur And Justin Martyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. But whether they have original sin or no yet take them in puris naturalibus they cannot goe to God or attain to eternity to which they were intended in their first being and creation and therefore much less since their naturals are impaired by the curse on humane nature procured by Adam's prevarication And if a natural agent cannot in puris naturalibus attain to heaven which is a supernatural end much less when it is loaden with accidental and grievous impediments Now then since the onely way revealed to us of acquiring Heaven is by Jesus Christ and the first inlet into Christianity and access to him is by Baptism as appears by the perpetual Analogie of the New Testament either Infants are not persons capable of that end which is the perfection of humane nature and to which the Soul of man in its being made immortal was essentially designed and so are miserable and deficient from the very end of humanity if they die before the use of Reason or else they must be brought to Christ by the Church doors that is by the Font and waters of Baptism 6. And in reason it seems more pregnant and plausible that Infants rather then men of understanding should be baptized For since the efficacy of the Sacraments depends upon Divine Institution and immediate benediction and that they produce their effects independently upon man in them that do not hinder their operation since Infants cannot by any
first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should not be re-baptized Manus tantùm eis imponatur ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum that is Let them be Confirm'd let there be Imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact But I also find it in a greater record in the General Council of Constantinople where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received secundùm constitutum Officium there was an Office appointed for it and it is in the Greeks Euchologion sigillatos primò scil Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis c. signantes eos dicimus Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils all giving witness to this holy Rite and that in pursuance also of Scripture are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian. SECT IV. The BISHOPS were always and the only Ministers of Confirmation SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans who were Baptized by Philip could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost answers Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations but this answer not satisfying he adds Hoc donum non habebat erat enim ex Septem illis id quod magìs videtur dicendum Vnde meâ sententiâ hic Philippus unus ex septem erat secundus à Stephano ideo Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat neque enim facultatem habebat hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans which thing is rather to be said than the other for Philip was one of the Seven and in my opinion next to S. Stephen therefore though he Baptized yet he gave not the Holy Ghost for he had no power so to do for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles Nam virtutem quidem acceperant Diaconi faciendi Signa non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare unde praecipuos non alios videmus hoc facere The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles but not of giving the Holy Spirit therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles whence it comes to pass that we see the chiefs in the Church and no other to do this S. Dionys says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this was the ancient custom of the Church And this was wont to be done by the Bishops for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ said S. Ambrose A solis Episcopis By Bishops only said S. Austin For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles said S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost that it comes from Scripture that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that it is done for the prevention of Schisms that the safety of the Church depends upon it But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter and published in the first Tome of the Councils are very full to this particular De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est non ab alio quà m ab Episcopo fieri licere nam Presbyteri licèt sâ—nt Sacerdotes Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi ut vel consignent vel paracletum Spiritum tradant non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat verùm illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum quae asserit Petrum Joannem esse directos qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum Concerning Confirmation of Infants it is manifest it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop for although the Presbyters be Priests yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy But that these things are only due to Bishops is â—ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church but by that of the Acts of the Apostles where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized Hoc unum à majoribus fit id est à summis Pontificibus quod à minoribus perfici non potest said P. Melchiades This of Confirmation is only done by the greater Ministers that is by the Bishops and cannot be done by the lesser This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke For this is our great Rule in this case what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty we see it done thus and by these men and by no others and no otherwise and we have no other authority and we have no reason to go another way The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Chrysostom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals his Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach such things as are not set down in Books their Practice is a Sermon their Example in these things must be our Rule or else we must walk irregularly and have no Rule but Chance and Humour Empire and Usurpation and therefore much rather when it is recorded in Holy Writ must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable But how if a Bishop be not to be had or not ready S. Ambrose is pretended to have answered Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus A Presbyter may consign if the Bishop be not present and Amalarius affirms Sylvestrum Papam praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret quantum potuit subvenisse propter absentiam Episcoporum necessitate addidisse ut à Presbytero Vngerentur That Pope Sylvester fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation brought remedy as far as he could and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet sieri non debuit The thing ought
earnest desires to serve God If he have not then in vain hath he received either Baptism or Confirmation But if he have it is certain that of himself he cannot do these things he cannot of himself think a good thought Does he therefore think well That is from the Holy Spirit of God To conclude this inquiry The Holy Ghost is promised to all men to profit withall that 's plain in Scripture Confirmation or Prayer and Imposition of the Bishops hand is the Solemnity and Rite us'd in Scripture for the conveying of that promise and the effect is felt in all the Sanctifications and changes of the Soul and he that denies these things hath not Faith nor the true notices of Religion or the spirit of Christianity Hear what the Scriptures yet further say in this Mystery Now he which confirmeth or stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God Who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Here is a description of the whole mysterious part of this Rite God is the Author of the Grace The Apostles and all Christians are the suscipients and receive this Grace by this Grace we are adopted and incorporated into Christ God hath anointed us that is he hath given us this Unction from above he hath sealed us by his Spirit made us his own bored our ears through made us free by his perpetual service and hath done all these things in token of a greater he hath given us his Spirit to testifie to us that he will give us of his glory These words of S. Paul besides that they evidently contain in them the spiritual part of this Ritual are also expounded of the Rite and Sacramental if self by S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact that I may name no more For in this Mystery Christos nos efficit misericordiam Dei nobis annunciat per Spiritum Sanctum said S. John Damascen he makes us his anointed ones and by the Holy Spirit he declares his eternal mercy towards us Nolite tangere Christos meos Touch not mine anointed ones For when we have this Signature of the Lord upon us the Devils cannot come near to hurt us unless we consent to their temptations and drive the Holy Spirit of the Lord from us SECT VII Of Preparation to Confirmation and the Circumstances of Receiving it IF Confirmation have such gracious effects why do we Confirm little Children whom in all reason we cannot suppose to be capable and receptive of such Graces It will be no answer to this if we say That this very question is asked concerning the Baptism of Infants to which as great effects are consequent even Pardon of all our sins and the New birth and Regeneration of the Soul unto Christ For in these things the Soul is wholly passive and nothing is required of the suscipient but that he put in no bar against the Grace which because Infants cannot do they are capable of Baptism but it follows not that therefore they are capable of Confirmation because this does suppose them such as to need new assistances and is a new profession and a personal undertaking and therefore requires personal abilities and cannot be done by others as in the case of Baptism The Aids given in Confirmation are in order to our contention and our danger our temptation and spiritual warfare and therefore it will not seem equally reasonable to Confirm Children as to Baptize them To this I answer That in the Primitive Church Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism for we find many Records that when the Office of Baptism was finished and the baptized person devested of the white Robe the person was carried again to the Bishop to be Confirmed as I have already shewn out of Dionysius and divers others The reasons why anciently they were ministred immediately after one another is not only because the most of them that were Baptized were of years to chuse their Religion and did so and therefore were capable of all that could be consequent to Baptism or annexed to it or ministred with it and therefore were also at the same time Communicated as well as Confirmed but also because the solemn Baptisms were at solemn times of the year at Faster only and Whitsuntide and only in the Cathedral or Bishop's Church in the chief City whither when the Catechumens came and had the opportunity of the Bishop's presence they took the advantage ut Sacramento utroque renascantur as S. Cyprian's expression is that they might be regenerated by both the Mysteries and they also had the third added viz. the Holy Eucharist This simultaneous ministration hath occasioned some few of late to mistake Confirmation for a part of Baptism but no distinct Rite or of distinct effect save only that it gave ornament and complement or perfection to the other But this is infinitely confuted by the very first ministery of Confirmation in the world For there was a great interval between S. Philip's Baptizing and the Apostles Confirming the Samaritans where also the difference is made wider by the distinction of the Minister a Deacon did one none but an Apostle and his Successor a Bishop could do the other and this being of so universal a Practice and Doctrine in the Primitive Church it is a great wonder that any Learned men could suffer an error in so apparent a case It is also clear in two other great remarks of the practice of the Primitive Church The one is of them who were Baptized in their sickness the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they recovered they were commanded to address themselves to the Bishop to be Confirmed which appears in the XXXVIII Canon of the Council of Eliberis and the XLVI Canon of the Council of Laodicea which I have before cited upon other occasions The other is that of Hereticks returning to the Church who were Confirmed not only long after Baptism but after their Apostasie and their Conversion For although Episcopal Confirmation was the inlargement of Baptismal grace and commonly administred the same day yet it was done by interposition of distinct Ceremonies and not immediately in time Honorius Augustodunensis tells That when the Baptized on the eighth day had laid aside their Mitres or proper habit used in Baptism then they were usually Confirmed or consigned with Chrism in the Forehead by the Bishop And when children were Baptized irregularly or besides the ordinary way in Villages and places distant from the Bishop Confirmation was deferr'd said Durandus And it is certain that this affair did not last long without variety Sometimes they ministred both together sometimes at greater sometimes at lesser distances and it was left indifferent in the Church to do the one or the other or the third according to the opportunity and the discretion of the Bishop But afterward in the middle and descending Ages it grew to be a question not whether it were
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
of question holy and true As for the form none ever misliked it but they that will admit no form for all admit this that admit any But that these should be parts of Liturgy needs not to be a question when we remember that Hezekiah and the Princes made it a Law to their Church to sing praises to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the Seer and that Christ himself did so and his Apostles after the manner of the Jews in the Feast of Passeover sung their Hymns and portions of the great Allelujah in the words of David and Asaph the Seer too and that there was a song in Heaven made up of the words of Moses and David and Jeremy the Seer and that the Apostles and the Church of God always chose to do so according to the commandment of the Apostle that we sing Psalms and Hymns to God I know not where we can have better than the Psalms of David and Asaph and these were ready at hand for the use of the Church insomuch that in the Christian Synaxes particularly in the Churches of Corinth S. Paul observed that every man had a Psalm it was then the common devotion and Liturgy of all the faithful and so for ever and the Fathers of the fourth Council of Toledo justifie the practice of the Church in recitation of the Psalms and Hymns by the example of Christ and his Apostles who after Supper sung a Psalm and the Church did also make Hymns of her own in the honour of Christ and sung them Such as was the Te Deum made by S. Ambrose and S. Augustine and they stood her in great stead not only as acts of direct worship to Christ but as Conservators of the Articles of Christs Divinity of which the Fathers made use against the Heretick Artemon as appears in Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 28. Eccles. Hist. 21. That reading the Scripture was part of the Liturgy of the Apostolical ages we find it in the tenth Canon of the Apostles in Albinus Flaccus Rabanus Maurus and in the Liturgy attributed to S. James Deinde leguntur fusissime oracula sacra veteris Testamenti Prophetarum Filii Dei Incarnatio demonstratur Passio Resurrectio ex mortuis ascensus in Coelum secundus item adventus ejus cum gloria Atque id fit singulis diebus c. 22. So that since thus far the matter of our devotions is warranted by Gods Spirit and the form by the precedents of Scripture too and the ages Apostolical above half of the English Liturgy is as Divine as Scripture it self and the choice of it for practice is no less than Apostolical 23. Of the same consideration is the Lords Prayer commanded by our blessed Saviour in two Evangelists the Introit is the Psal. 95. and the Responsories of Morning and Evening Prayer ejaculations taken from the words of David and Hezekiah the Decalogue recited in the Communion is the ten words of Moses and without peradventure was not taken into the Office in imitation of the Roman for although it was done upon great reason and considering the great ignorance of the people they were to inform yet I think it was never in any Church Office before but in Manuals and Catechisms only yet they are made Liturgick by the suffrages at the end of every Commandment and need no other warrant from antiquity but the 20. Chapter of Exodus There are not many parts beside and they which are derive themselves from an elder house than the Roman Offices The Gloria Patri was composed by the Nicene Council the latter Versicle by S. Jerome though some eminently learned and in particular Baronius is of an opinion that it was much more ancient It was at first a confession of Faith and used by a newly baptized Convert and the standers by and then it came to be a Hymn and very early annexed to the Antiphones and afterwards to the Psalms and Hymns all except that of S. Ambrose beginning with Te Deum because that of it self is a great Doxology It is seven times used in the Greek Office of Baptism and in the recitation of it the Priest and People stood all up and turned to the East and this custom ever continued in the Church and is still retained in the Church of England in conformity to the ancient and Primitive custom save only that in the Litany we kneel which is a more humble posture but not so ancient the Litanies having usually been said walking not kneeling or standing But in this the variety is an ornament to the Churches garment S. Gregory added this Doxology to the Responsory at the beginning of Prayer after O Lord make hast to help us That was the last and yet above a thousand years old and much elder than the body of Popery And as for the latter part of the Doxology I am clearly of opinion that though it might by S. Hierome be brought into the Latin Church yet it was in the Greek Church before him witness that most ancient Hymn or Doxology 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However as to the matter of the Doxology it is no other than the Confession of the three most blessed persons of the Trinity which Christ commanded and which with greatest solemnity we declare in Baptism and certainly we can no ways better or more solemnly and ritually give glory to the Holy Trinity than by being baptized into the profession and service of it The Trisagion was taught to the Greek Church by Angels but certain it is it sprang not from a Roman fountain and that the Canon of our Communion is the same with the old Canon of the Church many hundred years before Popery had invaded the simplicity of Christian Religion is evident if we compare the particulars recited by S. Basil Innocentius his Epistle to John Archbishop of Lyons Honorius the Priest Alcuinus and Walafridus Strabo and if we will we may add the Liturgy said to be S. James's and the Constitution of S. Clement for whoever was the author of these certainly they were ancient Radulphus Tongrensis and the later Ritualists Cassander Pamelius Hittorpius Jacobus Goar and the rest 24. And that we may be yet more particular the very Prayer for Christs Catholick Church in the Office of Communion beside that it is nothing but a plain execution of an Apostolical precept set down in the Preface of the Prayer it was also used in all times and in all Liturgies of the ancient Church And we find this attested by S. Cyril of Jerusalem Deinde postquam confectum est illud spirituale sacrificium obsecramus Deum pro communi Ecclesiarum pace pro tranquillitate mundi pro Regibus c. To the same purpose also there is a testimony in S. Chrysostome which because it serves not only here but also to other uses it will not be amiss here to note it Quid autem sibi vult primum
part In the mean time I shall set down those grounds of Religion and reason upon which publick Liturgie relies and by the strength of which it is to be justified against all opposition and pretences Sect. 66. 1. THE Church hath a power given to her by the Spirit of God and a command to describe publick forms of Liturgie For I consider that the Church is a Family Jesus Christ is the Master of the Family the holy Spirit is the great Dispensator of all such graces the family needs and are in order to the performance of their Duty the Apostles and their Successors the Rulers of the Church are Stewards of the manifold graces of God whose office is to provide every mans portion and to dispence the graces and issues Evangelical by way of Ministry Who is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler of his Houshold It was our blessed Saviour's Question and Saint Paul answered it Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Now the greatest Ministery of the Gospel is by way of prayer most of the graces of the Spirit being obtained by prayer and such offices which operate by way of impetration and benediction and consecration which are but the several instances of prayer Prayer certainly is the most effectual and mysterious ministery and therefore since the Holy Ghost hath made the Rulers of the Church Stewards of the mysteries they are by vertue of their Stewardship Presidents of Prayer and publick Offices Sect. 67. 2. WHICH also is certain because the Priest is to stand between God and the People and to represent all their needs to the throne of grace He is a Prophet and shall pray for thee said God concerning Abraham to Abimelech And therefore the Apostles appointed inferiour Officers in the Church that they might not be hindred in their great work but we will give our selves to the word of God and to prayer And therefore in our greatest need in our sickness and last scene of our lives we are directed to send for the Elders of the Church that they may pray over us and God hath promised to hear them and if prayer be of any concernment towards the final condition of our souls certainly it is to be ordered guided and disposed by them who watch for our souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they that must give account to God for them Sect. 68. 3. NOW if the Rulers of the Church are Presidents of the rites of Religion and by consequence of Prayer either they are to order publick prayers or private For private I suppose most men will be so desirous of their liberty as to preserve that in private where they have no concernments but their own for matter of order or scandal But for publick if there be any such thing as Government and that prayers may be spoiled by disorder or made ineffectual by confusion or by any accident may become occasion of a scandal it is certain that they must be ordered as all other things are in which the publick is certainly concerned that is by the Rulers of the Church who are answerable if there be any miscarriage in the publick Thus far I suppose there will not be much question with those who allow set forms but would have themselves be the Composers They would have the Ministers pray for the people but the Ministers shall not be prescribed to the Rulers of the Church shall be the Presidents of religious rites but then they will be the Rulers therefore we must proceed farther and because I will not now enter into the Question who are left by Christ to govern his Church I will proceed upon such grounds which I hope may be sufficient to determine this Question and yet decline the other Therefore Sect. 69. SINCE the Spirit of God is the Spirit of supplication they to whom the greatest portion of the Spirit is promised are most competent persons to pray for the people and to prescribe forms of prayer But the promise of the Spirit is made to the Church in general to her in her united capacity to the whole Church first then to particular Churches then in the lowest seat of the Category to single persons And we have title to the Promises by being Members of the Church and in the Communion of Saints which beside the stylus curiae the form of all the great Promises being in general and comprehensive terms appears in this that when any single person is out of this communion he hath also no title to the promises which yet he might if he had any upon his own stock not derivative from the Church Now then I infer if any single persons will have us to believe without possibility of proof for so it must be that they pray with the Spirit for how shall they be able to prove the Spirit actually to abide in those single persons then much rather must we believe it of the Church which by how much the more general it is so much the more of the Spirit she is likely to have and then if there be no errors in the matter the Church hath the advantage and probability on her side and if there be an error in matter in either of them neither of them have the Spirit or they make not the true use of it But the publick spirit in all reason is to be trusted before the private when there is a contestation the Church being prior potior in promissis she hath a greater and prior title to the Spirit And why the Church hath not the spirit of prayer in her compositions as well as any of her children I desire once for all to be satisfied upon true grounds either of reason or revelation And if she have whether she have not as much as any single person If she have but as much then there is as much reason in respect of the divine assistance that the Church should make the forms as that any single Minister should and more reason in respect of order and publick influence and care and charge of souls but if she have a greater portion of the Spirit than a single person that is if the whole be greater than the part or the publick better than the private then it is evident that the Spirit of the Church in respect of the divine assistance is chiefly and in respect of order is only to be relied upon for publick provisions and forms of prayer Sect. 70. BUT now if the Church in her united capacity makes prayers for the people they cannot be supposed to be other than limited and determined forms for it is not practicable or indeed imaginable that a Synod of Church Governours be they who they will so they be of Christs appointment should meet in every Church and pray as every man list their Counsels are united and their results are conclusions and final determinations which like general propositions are
all that are deposited in the primitive records of our Religion Are not those Prayers and Hymns in holy Scripture excellent compositions admirable instruments of devotion full of piety rare and incomparable addresses to God Dare any man with his gift of Prayer pretend that he can ex tempore or by study make better Who dares pretend that he hath a better spirit than David had or than the Apostles and Prophets and other holy persons in Scripture whose Prayers and Psalms are by Gods Spirit consigned to the use of the Church for ever Or will it be denied but that they also are excellent Directories and Patterns for prayer And if Patterns the nearer we draw to our example are not the imitations and representments the better And what then if we took the Samplers themselves Is there any imperfection in them and can we mend them and correct the Magnificat The very matter of these and the Author no less than Divine cannot but justifie the Forms though set determin'd and prescribed Sect. 85. IN a just proportion and commensuration I argue so concerning the primitive and ancient forms of Church-service which are composed according to those so excellent Patterns which if they had remained pure as in the first institution or had always been as they had been reformed by the Church of England they would against all defiance put in for the next place to those forms of Liturgy which mutatis mutandis are nothing but the words of Scripture But I am resolved at this present not to enter into Question concerning the matter of Prayers Sect. 86. NEXT we must enquire what the Apostles did in obedience to the precept of Christ and what the Church did in imitation of the Apostles That the Apostles did use the Prayer their Lord taught them I think need not much be questioned they could have no other end of their desire and it had been a strange boldness to ask for a form which they intended not to use or a strange levity not to do what they intended But I consider they had a double capacity they were of the Jewish Religion by education and now Christians by a new institution in the first capacity they used those Set forms of Prayer which their Nation used in their devotions Christ and his Apostles sang a Hymn part of the great Allelujah which was usually sung at the end of the Paschal Supper After the Supper they sang a Hymn sayes the Evangelist The Jews also used every Sabbath to sing the XCII Psalm which is therefore intitled A Song or Psalm for the Sabbath and they who observed the hours of Prayer and Vows according to the rites of the Temple need not be suspected to have omitted the Jewish forms of prayer And as they complied with the religious customes of the Nation worshipping according to the Jewish manner it is also in reason to be presumed they were Worshippers according to the new Christian institution and used that form their Lord taught them Sect. 87. NOW that they tyed themselves to recitation of the very words of Christs Prayer pro loco tempore I am therefore easie to believe because I find they were strict to a scruple in retaining the Sacramental words which Christ spake when he instituted the blessed Sacrament insomuch that not only three Evangelists but Saint Paul also not only making a narrative of the institution but teaching the Corinthians the manner of its celebration to a tittle he recites the words of Christ. Now the action of the Consecrator is not a theatrical representment of the action of Christ but a sacred solemn and Sacramental prayer in which since the Apostles at first and the Church ever after did with reverence and fear retain the very words it is not only a probation of the Question in general in behalf of set forms but also a high probability that they retained the Lords Prayer and used it to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very form of words Sect. 88. AND I the rather make this inference from the preceding argument because of the cognation one hath with the other for the Apostles did also in the consecration of the Eucharist use the Lords Prayer and that together with the words of institution was the only form of consecration saith Saint Gregory and Saint Hierome affirms that the Apostles by the command of their Lord used this prayer in the benediction of the Elements Sect. 89. BUT besides this when the Apostles had received great measures of the Spirit and by their gift of Prayer composed more Forms for the help and comfort of the Church and contrary to the order in the first Creation the light which was in the body of the Sun was now diffused over the face of the new heavens and the new Earth it became a precept Evangelical that we should praise God in Hymns and Psalms and Spiritual Songs which is so certain that they were compositions of industry and deliberation and yet were sung in the Spirit that he who denies the last speaks against Scriptures he who denies the first speaks against Reason and would best confute himself if in the highest of his pretence of the Spirit he would venture at some ex tempore Hymns And of this we have the express testimony of St. Austin de Hymnis Psalmis canendis haberi Domini Apostolorum documenta utilia praecepta And the Church obeyed them for as an Ancient Author under the name of Diâ—nysius Areopagita relates the chief of the Clerical and Ministring Order offer bread upon the altar Cum Ecclesiastici omnes laudem hymnumque generalem Deo tribuerunt cum quibus Pontifex sacras preces ritè perficit c. They all sing one Hymn to God and the Bishop prays ritè according to the ritual or constitution which in no sence of the Church or of Grammar can be understood without a solemn and determined form 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon is cantare idem saepiùs dicere apud Graecos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were forms of praising God used constantly periodically and in the daily Offices And the Fathers of the Councel of Antioch complain against Paulus Samosatenus Quod Psalmos cantus qui ad domini nostri Jesu Christi honorem decantari solent tanquam recentiores à viris recentioris memoriae editos exploserit The quarrel was that he said the Church had used to say Hymns which were made by new men and not deriv'd from the Ancients which if we consider that the Councel of Antioch was in the twelfth year of Galienus the Emperour 133 years after Christs Ascension will fairly prove that the use of prescribed Forms of prayer Hymns and forms of Worshipping were very early in the Church and it is unimaginable it should be otherwise when we remember the Apostolical precept before mentioned And if we fancy a higher precedent than what was manifested upon earth we
may please to see one observ'd to have been made in Heaven for a set form of Worship and address to God was recorded by St. John and sung in Heaven and it was composed out of the Songs of Moses Exod. 15. of David Psal. 145 and of Jeremy Chap. 10.6 7. which certainly is a very good precedent for us to imitate although but revealed by St. John by way of vision and extasie that we may see if we would speak with the tongue of Men and Angels we could not praise God in better Forms than what are recorded in holy Scripture Sect. 90. BUT besides the metrical part the Apostle hath described other parts of Liturgy in Scripture whose composition though it be in determined forms of words yet not so bound up with numbers as Hymns and these Saint Paul calls supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks which are several manners of address distinguished by their subject matter by their form and manner of address As appears plainly by intercessions and giving of thanks the other are also by all men distinguished though in the particular assignment they differ but the distinction of the Words implies the distinction of Offices which together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lectionarium of the Church the Books of the Apostles and Prophets spoken of by Justin Martyr and said to be used in the Christian congregations are the constituent parts of Liturgy and the exposition of the words we best learn from the practice of the Church who in all Ages of whose publick offices any record is left to us took their pattern from these places of Scripture the one for Prose the other for Verse and if we take Liturgy into its several parts or members we cannot want something to appply to every one of the words of St. Paul in these present allegations Sect. 91. FOR the offices of prose we find but small mention of them in the very first time save only in general terms and that such there were and that St. James St. Mark St. Peter and others of the Apostles and Apostolical men made Liturgies and if these which we have at this day were not theirs yet they make probation that these Apostles left others or else they were impudent people that prefixed their names so early and the Churches were very incurious to swallow such a bole if no pretension could have been reasonably made for their justification But concerning Church Hymns we have clearer testimony in particular both because they were many of them and because they were dispersed more soon got by heart passed also among the people and were pious arts of the Spirit whereby holy things were instilled into their souls by the help of fancy and a more easie memory The first civilizing of people used to be by Poetry and their Divinity was conveyed by Songs and Verses and the Apostle exhorted the Christians to exhort one another in Psalms and Hymns for he knew the excellent advantages were likely to accrue to religion by such an insinuation of the mysteries Thus St. Hilary and St. Ambrose composed Hymns for the use of the Church and St. Austin made a Hymn against the Schism of Donatus which Hymns when they were publickly allowed of were used in publick Offices not till then For Paulus Samosatenus had brought Women into the Church to sing vain and trifling songs and some Bishops took to themselves too great and incurious a license and brought Hymns into the Church whose gravity and piety was not very remarkable upon occasion of which the Fathers of the Councel of Laodicea ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Psalms of private composition must be brought into the Church so Gentian Harvet renders it Isidore Translates it Psalmos ab idiotis compositos Psalms made by common persons Psalms usually sung abroad so Dionysius Exiguus calls them Psalmos Plebeios but I suppose by the following words is meant That none but Scripture Psalms shall be read there for so the Canon addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing to be read in the Church but Books of the Old and New Testament And this interpretation agrees well enough with the occasion of the Canon which I now mentioned Sect. 92. THIS only by the way the reddition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Isidore to be Psalms made by common persons whom the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignorant or unlearned is agreeable enough with that of Saint Paul who intimates that prayers and forms of Liturgies are to be composed for them not by them they were never thought of to be persons competent to make Forms of Prayers themselves For S. Paul speaks of such an one as of a person coming into the Church to hear the Prophets pray and sing and interpret and prophesie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is reproved of all and judged of all and therefore the most unfit person in the world to bring any thing that requires great ability and great authority to obtrude it upon the Church his Rulers and his Judges And this was not unhandsomely intimated by the word sometimes used by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greek Church calling the publick Liturgie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Prayers made for the use of the Idiotae or private persons as the word is contradistinguished from the Rulers of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies contum and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live in the condition of a private person and in the vulgar Greek sayes Arcudius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a little man of a low stature from which two significations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well enough design a short form of Prayer made for the use of private persons And this was reasonable and part of the Religion even of the Heathen as well as Christians the presidents of their Religion were to find prayers for the people and teach them forms of address to their Gods Castis cum pueris ignara puella mariti Disceret unde preces vatem ni Musa dedisset Poscit opem chorus praesentia numina sentit Coelestes implorat equas docta prece blandus Carmine dii superi placantur carmine Manes But this by the way Sect. 93. BUT because I am casually fallen upon mention of the Laodicean Council and that it was very ancient before the Nicene and of very great reputation both in the East and in the West it will not be a contemptible addition to the reputation of set forms of Liturgy that we find them so early in the Church reduced to a very regular and composed manner The XVth Canon suffers none to sing in the Church but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that sing by book and go up into the Pulpit they were the same persons and the manner of doing their office was their appellative which shews plainly that the known
custom of the Church was for them who were in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Pulpit to read their offices and devotions They read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the word in the Canon Those things which signifie the greatest or first Antiquity are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was spoken proverbially to signifie ancient things And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians the singers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity which also is the more credible because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment as a thing known by so long an use till it came to be their appellative * The 17th and 18th Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Liturgy that 's the word or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists and Readers they did not sing or say ex tempore but they read Prayers and Psalms and sung them out of a Book neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still the same form of prayers without variation Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he does dictate the hymns to the singers and then of the singers there is no question and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Their office was the same with the Reader they did ex praescripto praeire ad verbum referre the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece The first read out of a Book the appointed prayers and the others rehearsed them after Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office and no publick office be described Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more and pass on ad alia And that is that I never yet saw any instance example or pretence of precedent of any Bishop Priest or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church and although in some places single Bishops or peradventure other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their own into the Church yet ever they were compositions and premeditations and were brought thither there to be repeated often and added to the Liturgy and although the Liturgies while they were less full than since they have been were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons yet the inconvenience grew so great by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit that the Church as She always had forms of publick Prescription so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets and such Spirits when they are once tried whether they be of God or no tryed by a lawful superiour and a competent Judge may then venture into the open air And it were a strange imprudence choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt and declar'd and remedied For why should we be in love with that evil against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches by the provision and defence of Laws For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason follows Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners Their reason is good and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personal concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two daies before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone The Church hath 1 power and authority and 2 command 3 and ability or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy and 4 the Church always did so in all descents from Moses to Christ from Christ to the Apostles from them all to all descending Ages for I have instanced till St. Austin's time and since there is no Question the people were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion they used unalterable forms of Prayers described out of the Books of publick Liturgy it remains only that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so and whether she did well or no In order to which I consider Sect. 97. FIRST Every man hath personal needs of his own and he that understands his own condition and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity his temporal estate in order to justice and charity and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health and his health in order to the service of God as every wise and good man does will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities as he can do for his own caeteris paribus no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man and therefore if he have proportionable abilities it is allowed to him and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God and he can best express his own sence or at least best sigh forth his own meaning and if he be a good
thing their appointing Rulers in every Church their Synodal Decrees de suffocato Sanguine and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia their excommunications of Hymeneus and Alexander and the incestuous Corinthian their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things as Saint Paul did of his subjects of Corinth and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical their threatning the Pastoral rod their calling Synods and publick Assemblies their ordering Rites and Ceremonies composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity their publick reprehension of Delinquents and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction SECT III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate THIS Power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons For when the Great Shepherd had reduced his wandring Sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to govern them so long as the Wolf might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem seculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long ago but vobiscum vestri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetual Regiment of the Church for then the Church should fail when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in materiâ censurae as delivering to Satan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance for then it had been done and still these signs should have followed them that believe But we see they do not It follows then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetual assistance For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary Office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a help for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of sence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unless men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and ordination have their sins pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sons of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy SECT IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these Offices and therefore though in a very limited sence they may be called successores Apostolorum to wit in the power of Baptizing consecrating the Eucharist and Preaching an excellent example whereof though we have none in Scripture yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Combination of Apostles yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power and offices which are ordinary and perpetual are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signifie exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apostasie of Judas and Surrogation of Saint Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Apostolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the seventy is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelical prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousness Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith Saint Hierom herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by Saint Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians But this is no way unusual in Scripture For 2. Saint James the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle and yet he was not in the number of the twelve but he was Bishop of Jerusalem First That Saint James was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of Saint Paul But other Apostles saw I none save James the Lords Brother Secondly That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two James's The son of Alpheus and James the son of Zebedee the brother of John But neither of these was the James whom Saint Paul calls the Lords Brother And this Saint Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the Resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to James then to all the Apostles So that here Saint James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity than the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Hegesippus Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierom. Thirdly That Saint James was Bishop of Jerusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Gal. 2. even before Saint Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Gratiâ unus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus as S. Augustin yet in his own
Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busie man in anothers Diocess This and such Impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by Saint John himself as is intimated in Saint John's third Epistle written to his Gaius v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrel for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to do v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is clear this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal preheminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his design He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop SECT VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters BUT this Office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its Fountain from a Rock Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith Saint Luke He called his Disciples and out of them chose twelve and called them Apostles That was the first election Post haec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos That was his second election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them by two and two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their Names were written in Heaven We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own And so we do For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clerical commission by vertue of Christ's first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clerical offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts Others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Councel for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and Saint Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem these and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72. by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while SECT VII Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not THEN It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church and therefore to be committed to their Successors which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy The Law of God hath reserved the greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order First The Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations which the 72. did not the case is known Acts 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to chuse seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poor They did so and set them before the twelve Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72. who were there actually present and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministery for they were not now ordained to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councel of Constantinople calls them and that these were the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witness He sent other 72. to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the Widows And the same is intimated by Saint Chrysostom if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dignity had these seven here ordained Of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of Saint Chrysostom pro more suo adds this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seven was no less but even the dignity of Presbyters only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is clear that the 72. were present for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident they were not yet sent abroad they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affair vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them Secondly An instance parallel to this is in the imposition of hands upon Saint Paul and Barnabas in the first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Saul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while these men were ministring the Holy Ghost said to them separate me Barnabas and Saul They did so they fasted they prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed into Seleucia This is the story now let us make our best on 't Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands compleat and that was said to be done by the Holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch For they sent them away and yet the next words are so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost So that here was the thing done and that by the Prophets alone and that by the command of the Holy Ghost and said to be his act Well! but what were these Prophets They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch not such as Agabus and the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist Prophets of prediction extraordinary but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers and Ministers More than ordinary
Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi ordinis none of the twelve but such as Saint James and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and Saint Paul himself To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke for here it was that Saint Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters and therefore they imposed hands and they only And yet to make the business up compleat Saint Mark was amongst them but he imposed no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as Saint Paul himself was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist and one of the 72. Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were less than Prophets that is who were not more than meer Presbyters The sum is this Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne gens sit Vnius aetatis lest it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto and were commanded to do so and the 72. never did so therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy as the Church it self SECT VIII And Confirmation SECONDLY The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergy could not is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost Saint Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72. Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows yet he could not do this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For Saint Philip could and did do miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus Saint Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelve only but Apostolick men the other Apostles Saint Paul did it Saint Philip could not nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired First Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternal and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent he dyed suddenly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporal punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church and the power of the Keys is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith these miracles at first did confirm the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appears from these considerations First Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum the Holy Ghost in his stead and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father This was pertinent to all Christendom Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem so it was in the Prophecy For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to all them that are afar off even to as many as the Lord shall call So it was in the first accomplishing To all And this for ever for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you and he shall abide with you for ever for it was in subsidium to supply the comforts of his desired presence and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again Now then this promise being to be communicated to all and that for ever must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission or by 2. an ordinary Ministery Not the first for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles
If the second as it is most certain so then the main Question is evicted viz. that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers nor of any but themselves and their Colleagues to wit Ministerium S. Spiritus or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost to the rest of the faithful after Baptisme Quod n. nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit Vniversis saith Eusebius Emissenus Now we find no other way of performing it nor any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people but this and we find that the Holy Ghost actually was given this way Therefore the effect to wit the Holy Ghost being to continue for ever and the promise of universal concernment this way also of its communication to wit by Apostolical imposition of hands is also perpetuum ministerium to be succeeded to and to abide for ever Secondly This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized people is so far from being a temporary Grace and to determine with the persons of the Apostles that it is a fundamental point of Christianity an essential ingredient to its composition Saint Paul is my Author Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works faith towards God the doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands c. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in Saint Paul's Catechism Now imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations First For Ordination and secondly for this whatsoever it is Imposition of hands for Ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father For the Holy Ghost for Ordination was given before the Ascension John 20. But the promises of the Holy Ghost the Comforter the Paraclete I say not the Ordainer or Fountain of Priestly order that was not given till the day of Pentecost and besides it was promised to all Christian people and the other was given only to the Clergy * Add to this that Saint Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progress from this to perfection as he calls it that is to higher mysteries and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelical which is Originally in Christ ministerially in the Clergy so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress or imagine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy the foundation of Christ's Priesthood and not rather contrary it is clear that by imposition of hands Saint Paul means not ordination and therefore confirmation there being no other ordinary ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in holy Scripture For as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity and the second is confessedly extraordinary therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles 3. Lastly The Primitive Church did de facto and believed themselves to be tyed de jure to use this Rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism Saint Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. John had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the Faith of Christendom Qui saith S. Clement eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit The Bishop first baptized him then consigned him Justin Martyr sayes speaking pro more Ecclesiae according to the Custom of the Church that when the mysteries of Baptism were done then the faithful are consigned or confirmed Saint Cyprian relates to this story of Saint Philip and the Apostles and gives this account of the whole affair Et idcircò quia legitimum Ecclesiasticum baptismum consequnti fuerant baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat Sed tantummodo id quod deerat id à Petro Iohanne factum erat ut oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur signaculo Dominico confirmentur Saint Peter and Saint Iohn by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria praying over them and giving them the Holy Ghost made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism and this is to this day done in the Church for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius in the Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops under the name of Saint Clement in the Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr in Tertullian in Saint Austin and in Saint Cyril of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation This only The Catholicks whose Christian prudence it was in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks lest their poyson should infect like a Pest laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime He was baptized in his bed and was not confirmed Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri therefore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle Whence it is evident that then it was the belief of Christendom that the Holy Ghost was by no ordinary Ministery given to faithful people after Baptism but only by Apostolical or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could do it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is clear that Saint Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must go to do it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought and de facto alwayes was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwayes be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it that is an
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Jerom affirm and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius and others of the Fathers did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles than he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It follows then since as will more fully appear anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I mean not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appears from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coercion was more necessary than at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority 2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual not so as to have all that which was personal and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine authority for our government which we must contend to do and do it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they failed in the founding of the Church and the Church is built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained or else we must be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches If these seven Angels were seven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself and given by him insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be supposed he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness they had not else been Angels of light nor stars held in Christs own right hand This is certain that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angel therefore is not cannot be meant the whole Church 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church First Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and divers others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they watch for your Souls And the second of Apostles and Apostolick men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren for these men although they were but of the LXXII at first yet by this time were made Apostles and chief men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Went up and down confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirm the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no less than Episcopal or Apostolical and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and divers others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called His Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have known thy Ministery His office therefore was clerical it
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
themselves the Princes and chief of all proved traditors The diversity of order is here fairly intimated but dogmatically affirmed by him in his 2d book adv Parmen Quatuor genera capitum sunt in Ecclesiâ Episcoporum Presbyterorum Diaconorum fidelium There are four sorts of heads in the Church Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the faithful Laity And it was remarkable when the people of Hippo had as it were by violence carried S. Austin to be made Priest by their Bishop Valerius some seeing the good man weep in consideration of the great hazard and difficulty accruing to him in his ordination to such an office thought he had wept because he was not Bishop they pretending comfort told him quia locus Presbyterii licèt ipse majore dignus esset appropinquaret tamen Episcopatui The office of a Presbyter though indeed he deserved a greater yet was the next step in order to a Bishoprick So Possidonius tells the story It was the next step the next descent in subordination the next under it So the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is sacriledge to bring down a Bishop to the degree and order of a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so the Council permits in case of great delinquency to suspend him from the execution of his Episcopal order but still the character remains and the degree of it self is higher * Nos autem idcirco haec scribimus Fratres chariss quia novimus quà m Sacrosanctum debeat esse Episcopale Sacerdotium quod clero plebi debet esse exemplo said the Fathers of the Council of Antioch in Eusebius The office of a Bishop is sacred and exemplary both to the Clergy and the People Interdixit per omnia Magna Synodus non Episcopo non Presbytero non Diacono licere c. And it was a remarkable story that Arius troubled the Church for missing of a Prelation to the order and dignity of a Bishop Post Achillam enim Alexander .... ordinatur Episcopus Hoc autem tempore Arius in ordine Presbyterorum fuit Alexander was ordained a Bishop and Arius still left in the order of meer Presbyters * Of the same exigence are all those clauses of commemoration of a Bishop and Presbyters of the same Church Julius autem Romanus Episcopus propter senectutem defuit erántque pro eo praesentes Vitus Vicentius Presbyteri ejusdem Ecclesiae They were his Vicars and deputies for their Bishop in the Nicene Council saith Sozomen But most pertinent is that of the Indian persecution related by the same man Many of them were put to death Erant autem horum alii quidem Episcopi alii Presbyteri alii diversorum ordinum Clerici And this difference of Order is clear in the Epistle of the Bishops of Illyricum to the Bishops of the Levant De Episcopis autem constituendis vel comministris jam constitutis si permanserint usque ad â—inem sani bene .... Similiter Presbyteros atque Diaconos in sacerdotali ordine definivimus c. And of Sabbatius it is said Nolens in suo ordine nanere Presbyteratus desiderabat Epiâ—opatum he would not stay in the order of a Presbyter but desired a Bishoprick Ordo Episcoporun quadripartitus est in Patriarchis Archiepiscopis Metropolitanis Episcopis saith S. Isidore Omnes autem superius designati ordines uno eodémque vocabulo Episcopi Nominantur But it were infinite to reckon authorities and clauses of exclusion for the three orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons we cannot almost dip in any tome of the Councils but we shall find it recorded And all the Martyr Bishops of Rome did ever acknowledge and publish it that Episcopacy is a peculiar office and order in the Church of God as is to be seen in their decretal Epistles in the first tome of the Councils I only summ this up with the attestation of the Church of England in the preface to the Book of ordination It is evident to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and Deacons The same thing exactly that was said in the second Council of Carthage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we shall see it better and by more real probation for that Bishops were a distinct order appears by this SECT XXIX To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 1. THE Presbyterate was but a step to Episcopacy as Deaconship to the Presbyterate and therefore the Council of Sardis decreed that no man should be ordained Bishop but he that was first a Reader and a Deacon and a Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That by every degree he may pass to the sublimity of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the degree of every order must have the permanence and trial of no small time Here there is clearly a distinction of orders and ordinations and assumptions to them respectively all of the same distance and consideration And Theodoret out of the Synodical Epistle of the same Council says that they complained that some from Arianism were reconciled and promoted from Deacons to be Presbyters from Presbyters to be Bishops calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a greater degree or Order And S. Gregory Nazianz. in his Encomium of S. Athanasius speaking of his Canonical ordination and election to a Bishoprick says that he was chosen being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most worthy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming through all the inferior Orders The same commendation S. Cyprian gives of Cornelius Non iste ad Episcopatum subito pervenit sed per omnia Ecclesiastica officia promotus in divinis administrationibus Dominum saepè promeritus ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis gradibus ascendit ... factus est Episcopus à plurimis Collegis nostris qui tunc in Vrbe Româ aderant qui ad nos literas .... de ejus ordinatione miserunt Here is evident not only a promotion but a new Ordination of S. Cornelius to be Bishop of Rome so that now the chair is full saith S. Cyprian quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est Nec habeat Ecclesiasticam ordinationem c. No man else can receive ordination to the Bishoprick SECT XXX There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 2. THE ordination of a Bishop to his chair was done de Novo after his being a Presbyter and not only so but in another manner than he had when he was made priest This is evident in the first Ecclesiastical Canon that was made after Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Priest and Deacon must be ordained of one Bishop but a Bishop must be ordained by two or three at least And that we may see it yet more to be Apostolical S. Anacletus in his second Epistle reports Hierosolymitarum primus
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
the matter of right and whether or no the Presbyters might de jure do any offices without Episcopal license but whether or no de facto it was permitted them in the Primitive Church This is sufficient to shew to what issue the reduction of Episcopacy to a primitive consistence will drive and if I mistake not it is at least a very probable determination of the question of right too For who will imagine that Bishops should at the first in the calenture of their infant-devotion in the new spring of Christianity in the times of persecution in all the publick disadvantages of state and fortune when they anchor'd only upon the shore of a Holy Conscience that then they should have thoughts ambitious incroaching of usurpation and advantages of purpose to devest their Brethren of an authority intrusted them by Christ and then too when all the advantage of their honour did only set them upon a hill to feel a stronger blast of persecution and was not as since it hath been attested with secular assistance and fair arguments of honour but was only in a meer spiritual estimate and ten thousand real disadvantages This will not be supposed either of wise or holy men But however Valeat quantum valere potest The question is now of matter of fact and if the Church of Martyrs and the Church of Saints and Doctors and Confessors now regnant in Heaven be fair precedents for practices of Christianity we build upon a rock though we had digg'd no deeper than this foundation of Catholick practice Upon the hopes of these advantages I proceed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter disrespecting his own Bishop shall make conventions apart or erect an Altar viz. without the Bishops license let him be deposed clearly intimating that potestas faciendi concionem the power of making of Church-meetings and assemblies for preaching or other offices is derived from the Bishop and therefore the Canon adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is a lover of Rule he is a Tyrant that is an usurper of that power and government which belongs to the Bishop The same thing is also decreed in the Council of Antioch and in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All the most Reverend Bishops cried out this is a righteous law this is the Canon of the holy Fathers This viz. The Canon Apostolical now cited Tertullian is something more particular and instances in Baptism Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus Dehinc Presbyteri Diaconi non tamen sine Episcopi authoritate propter honorem Ecclesiae quo salvo salva pax est alioquin etiam Laicis jus est The place is of great consideration and carries in it its own objection and its answer The Bishop hath the right of giving baptism Then after him Presbyters and Deacons but not without the authority of the Bishop So far the testimony is clear and this is for the honour of the Church * But does not this intimate it was only by positive constitution and neither by Divine nor Apostolical ordinance No indeed It does not For it might be so ordained by Christ or his Apostles propter honorem Ecclesiae and no harm done For it is honourable for the Church that her Ministrations should be most ordinate and so they are when they descend from the superiour to the subordinate But the next words do of themselves make answer Otherwise Lay-men have right to baptize That is without the consent of the Bishop Lay-men can do it as much as Presbyters and Deacons For indeed baptism conferred by Lay-men is valid and not to be repeated but yet they ought not to administer it so neither ought Presbyters without the Bishops license so says Tertullian let him answer it Only the difference is this Lay-men cannot jure ordinario receive a leave or commission to make it lawful in them to baptize any Presbyters and Deacons may for their order is a capacity or possibility ** But besides the Sacrament of Baptism Tertullian affirms the same of the venerable Eucharist Eucharistiae Sacramentum non de aliorum manu quà m Praesidentium sumimus The former place will expound this if there be any scruple in Praesidentium for clearly the Christians receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from none but Bishops I suppose he means without Episcopal license Whatsoever his meaning is these are his words The Council of Gangra forbidding Conventicles expresses it with this intimation of Episcopal authority If any man shall make assemblies privately and out of the Church so despising the Church or shall do any Church-offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without the presence of a Priest by the decree of a Bishop let him be anathema The Priest is not to be assistant at any meeting for private offices without the Bishops license If they will celebrate Synaxes privately it must be by a Priest and he must be there by leave of the Bishop and then the assembly is lawful And this thing was so known that the Fathers of the second Council of Carthage call it ignorance or hypocrisie in Priests to do their offices without a license from the Bishop Numidius Episcopus Massilytanus dixit In quibusdam locis sunt Presbyteri qui aut ignorantes simpliciter aut dissimulantes audacter praesente inconsulto Episcopo complurimis in domiciliis agunt agenda quod disciplinae incongruum cognoscit esse Sanctitas vestra In some places there are Priests that in private houses do offices houseling of people is the office meant communicating them at home without the consent or leave of the Bishop being either simply ignorant or boldly dissembling implying that they could not else but know their duties to be to procure Episcopal license for their ministrations Ab Vniversis Episcopis dictum est Quisquis Presbyter inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare ipse honori suo contrarius existit All the Bishop said if any Priest without leave of his Bishop shall celebrate the mysteries be the place what it will be he is an enemy to the Bishops dignity After this in time but before in authority is the great Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Clergy according to the tradition of the Fathers remain under the power of the Bishops of the City So that they are for their offices in dependance of the authority of the Bishop The Canon instances particularly to Priests officiating in Monasteries and Hospitals but extends it self to an indefinite expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They must not dissent or differ from their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. All they that transgress this constitution in any way not submitting to their Bishop Let them be punished Canonically So that now these general expressions of obedience and subordination to the Bishop being to be understood according to the exigence of the matter to wit the Ministeries of the Clergy in their
them but Diocesan and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests do from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocess eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentius oportet ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith Against this if it be objected Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which is of general concernment must also be of general Scrutiny I answer it is true unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all and is handled by all not in diffusion but in representation For Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesiâ saith S. Cyprian the Church is in the Bishop viz. by representment and the Bishop is in the Church viz. as a Pilot in a ship or a Master in a family or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called in Eusebius conventus orbis terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils for I doubt not but they have souls too But however if this argument were concluding in it self yet it loses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council it was an old heretical trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut quisquam Judex resideat sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen eligat quem sequatur So may Presbyters be present so they may judge not for others but for themselves And so may the people be present and anciently were so and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by external sentence but internal conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision For although in the story of celebration of it we find no man giving sentence but Peter and James yet in Acts 16. they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees judged by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the less because Presbyter was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors And then secondly it is none at all because Paul and Barnabas are signally and by name reckoned as present in the Synod and one of them Prolocutor or else both So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty or where any is pretended And of this I have already given account * I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils It is a pretty pageant only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church against the exigence of Scripture which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to be tumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils The pretence is in the Synodal letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is says Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not Brethren that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Government and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be asked who then are meant by Elders if by Brethren S. Luke understands these Church-officers I answer that here is such variety that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren yet here are enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorising the decretal For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we do Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men are called in Scripture chief men among the brethren But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid amplius dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men says the Emperor must by no means
security and revenge 2dly As yet there had been scarce any Synods to determine cases of publick difficulty and what they could not receive from publick decision it was fitting they should supply by the maturity of a Conciliary assistance and deliberation For although by the Canons of the Apostles Bishops were bound twice a year to celebrate Synods yet persecution intervening they were rather twice a year a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dispersion than a Synod 3. Although Synods had been as frequently conven'd as was intended by the Apostles yet it must be length of time and a successive experience that must give opportunity and ability to give general rules for the emergency of all particulars and therefore till the Church grew of some considerable age a fixt standing Colledge of Presbyters was more requisite than since it hath been when the frequency of general Councils and provincial Synods and the peace of the Church and the innumerable volumes of the Fathers and Decretals of Bishops and a digest of Ecclesiastical Constitutions hath made the personal assistance of Presbyters unnecessary 4. When necessity required not their presence and counsel their own necessity required that they should attend their several cures For let it be considered they that would now have a Colledge of Presbyters assist the Bishop whether they think of what follows For either they must have Presbyters ordained without a title which I am sure they have complained of these threescore years or else they must be forced to Non-residence For how else can they assist the Bishop in the ordinary and daily occurrencies of the Church unless either they have no cure of their own or else neglect it And as for the extraordinary either the Bishop is to consult his Metropolitan or he may be assisted by a Synod if the Canons already constituted do not aid him but in all these cases the Presbyter is impertinent 5. As this assistance of Presbyters was at first for necessity and after by custome it grew a Law so now retrò first the necessity failed and then the desuetude abrogated the Law which before custome had established quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleverit nescio saith S. Ambrose he knew not how it came to be obsolete but so it was it had expired before his time Not but that Presbyters were still in Mother-Churches I mean in Great ones In Ecclesiâ enim habemus Senatum nostrum actum Presbyterorum we have still saith S. Hierome in the Church our Senate a Colledge or Chapter of Presbyters he was then at Rome or Jerusalem but they were not consulted in Church affairs and matter of jurisdiction that was it that S. Ambrose wondred how it came to pass And thus it is to this day In our Mother-Churches we have a Chapter too but the Bishop consults them not in matters of ordinary jurisdiction just so it was in S. Ambrose his time and therefore our Bishops have altered no custome in this particular the alteration was pregnant even before the end of the four general Councils and therefore is no violation of a divine right for then most certainly a contrary provision would have been made in those conventions wherein so much sanctity and authority and Catholicism and severe discipline were conjunct and then besides it is no innovation in practice which pretends so fair antiquity but however it was never otherwise than voluntary in the Bishops and positive discipline in the Church and conveniency in the thing for that present and counsel in the Presbyters and a trouble to the Presbyters persons and a disturbance of their duties when they came to be fixt upon a particular charge * One thing more before I leave I find a Canon of the Council of Hispalis objected Episcopus Presbyteris solus honorem dare potest solus autem auferre non potest A Bishop may alone ordain a Priest a Bishop may not alone depose a Priest Therefore in censures there was in the Primitive Church a necessity of conjunction of Presbyters with the Bishop in imposition of censures * To this I answer first it is evident that he that can give an honour can also take it away if any body can for there is in the nature of the thing no greater difficulty in pulling down than in raising up It was wont always to be accounted easier therefore this Canon requiring a conjunct power in deposing Presbyters is a positive constitution of the Church founded indeed upon good institution but built upon no deeper foundation neither of nature or higher institution than its own present authority But that 's enough for we are not now in question of divine right but of Catholick and Primitive practice To it therefore I answer that the conjunct hand required to pull down a Presbyter was not the Chapter or Colledge of Presbyters but a company of Bishops a Synodal sentence and determination for so the Canon runs qui profecto nec ab uno damnari nec uno judicante poterunt honoris sui privilegiis exui sed praesentati Synodali Judicio quod canon de illis praeceperit definiri And the same thing was determined in the Greeks Council of Carthage If a Presbyter or a Deacon be accused their own Bishop shall judge them not alone but with the assistance of six Bishops more in the case of a Presbyter three of a Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the causes of the other Clergy the Bishop of the place must Alone hear and determine them So that by this Canon in some things the Bishop might not be alone but then his assistants were Bishops not Presbyters in other things he alone was judge without either and yet his sentences must not be clancular but in open Court in the full Chapter for his Presbyters must be present and so it is determined for Africa in the fourth Council of Carthage Vt Episcopus nullius causam audiat absque praesentiâ Clericorum suorum alioquin irrita erit sententia Episcopi nisi praesentiâ Clericorum confirmetur Here is indeed a necessity of the presence of the Clergy of his Church where his Consistory was kept lest the sentence should be clandestine and so illegal but it is nothing but praesentia Clericorum for it is sententia Episcopi The Bishops sentence and the Clerks presence only for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops Alone might give sentence in the causes of the inferiour Clergy even by this Canon it self which is used for objection against the Bishops sole jurisdiction *** I know nothing now to hinder our process for the Bishops jurisdiction is clearly left in his own hand and the Presbyters had no share in it but by delegation and voluntary assumption Now I proceed in the main question SECT XLV So that the government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary WE have seen what Episcopacy is in it self now from the same principles let us see what it is to
titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the Prince of Priests Now since honour and excellency are terms of mutual relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so far as they participate of God so far they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must do him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the highest honour Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans honorem cathedrae potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus in civitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High-Priest ordained in the City viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat à Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself He that despiseth you despiseth me If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what is done to the Bishop is far more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odd one even this Whether Christ be to be honoured or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider we that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou my Lord Elijah said Obadiah to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schools So it was then And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation Angels and Governours and Fathers of our Faith and Stars Lights of the World the Crown of the Church Apostles of Jesus Christ nay Gods viz. to whom the Word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly Saint Hierom saith that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have proved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdom and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and get the best preferment from them to wit in a temporal Kingdom No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you What shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them Shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honorary appellative that was would have questioned him highly for it But if we go to the sence of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi or Master or Doctor or Father What shall we think now May we not be called Doctors God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith Saint Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the several places of the Gospels and may no man be called Master or Father Let an answer be thought on for these and the same will serve
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
Countries of Christendom till by Crusado's massacres and battels burnings and the constant Carnificia and butchery of the Inquisition which is the main prop of the Papacy and does more than Tu es Petrus they prevail'd far and near and men durst not oppose the evidence whereby they fought And now the wonder is out it is not strange that the Article hath been so readily entertained But in the Greek Church it could not prevail as appears not only in Cyril's book of late dogmatically affirming the Article in our sence but in the Answer of Cardinal Humbert to Nicetas who maintained the receiving the holy Sacrament does break the fast which it could not do if it were not what it seems bread and wine as well as what we believe it to be the body and blood of Christ. And now in prosecution of their strange improbable success they proceed to perswade all people that they are fools and do not know the measures of sence nor understand the words of Scripture nor can tell when any of the Fathers speak affirmatively or negatively and after many attempts made by diverse unprosperously enough as the thing did constrain and urge them a great Wit Cardinal Perron hath undertaken the Question and hath spun his thread so fine and twisted it so intricately and adorned it so sprucely with language and sophisms that although he cannot resist the evidence of truth yet he is too subtle for most mens discerning and though he hath been contested by potent adversaries and wise men in a better cause than his own yet he will alwayes make his Reader believe that he prevails which puts me in mind of what Thucydides told Archidamus the King of Sparta asking him whether he or Pericles were the better wrastler he told him that when he threw Pericles on his back he would with fine words perswade the people that he was not down at all and so he got the better So does he and is to all considering men a great argument of the danger that Articles of Religion are in and consequently mens perswasions and final interest when they fall into the hands of a witty man and a Sophister and one who is resolved to prevail by all means But truth is stronger than wit and can endure when the other cannot and I hope it will appear so in this Question which although it is managed by weak hands that is by mine yet to all impartial persons it must be certain and prevailing upon the stock of its own sincerity and derivation from God And now R. R. though this Question hath so often been disputed and some things so often said yet I was willing to bring it once more upon the stage hoping to add some clearness to it by fitting it with a good instrument and clear conveyance and representment by saying something new and very many which are not generally known and less generally noted and I thought there was a present necessity of it because the Emissaries of the Church of Rome are busie now to disturb the peace of consciences by troubling the persecuted and ejecting scruples into the infortunate who suspect every thing and being weary of all are most ready to change from the present They have got a trick to ask where is our Church now What is become of your Articles of your Religion We cannot answer them as they can be answered for nothing satisfies them but being prosperous and that we cannot pretend to but upon the accounts of the Cross and so we may indeed rejoyce and be exceeding glad because we hope that great is our reward in Heaven But although they are pleased to use an Argument that like Jonas Gourd or Sparagus is in season only at some times yet we according to the nature of Truth inquire after the truth of their Religion upon the account of proper and Theological Objections Our Church may be a beloved Church and dear to God though she be persecuted when theirs is in an evil condition by obtruding upon the Christian world Articles of Religion against all that which ought to be the instruments of credibility and perswasion by distorting and abusing the Sacraments by making error to be an art and that a man must be witty to make himself capable of being abused by out-facing all sence and reason by damning their brethren for not making their understanding servile and sottish by burning them they can get and cursing them that they cannot get by doing so much violence to their own reasons and forcing themselves to believe that no man ever spake against their new device by making a prodigious error to be necessary to salvation as if they were Lords of the Faith of Christendom But these men are grown to that strange triumphal gaety upon their joy that the Church of England as they think is destroyed that they tread upon her grave which themselves have digged for her who lives and pities them and they wonder that any man should speak in her behalf and suppose men do it out of spight and indignation and call the duty of her sons who are by persecution made more confident pious and zealous in defending those truths for which she suffers on all hands by the name of anger and suspect it of malicious vile purposes I wonder'd when I saw something of this folly in one that was her son once but is run away from her sorrow and disinherited himself because she was not able to give him a temporal portion and thinks he hath found out reasons enough to depart from the miserable I will not trouble him or so much as name him because if his words are as noted as they are publick every good man will scorn them if they be private I am not willing to publish his shame but leave him to consideration and repentance But for our dear afflicted Mother she is under the portion of a child in the state of discipline her government indeed hindered but her Worshippings the same the Articles as true and those of the Church of Rome as false as ever of which I hope the following book will be one great instance But I wish that all tempted persons would consider the illogical deductions by which these men would impose upon their consciences If the Church of England be destroyed then Transubstantiation is true which indeed had concluded well if that Article had only pretended false because the Church of England was prosperous But put the case the Turk should invade Italy and set up the Alcoran in S. Peters Church would it be endured that we should conclude that Rome was Antichristian because her temporal glory is defaced The Apostle in this case argued otherwise The Church of the Jews was cut off for their sins be not high-minded ô ye Gentiles but fear lest he also cut thee off it was counsel given to the Romans But though blessed be God our afflictions are great yet we can and do onjoy the same religion as the good Christians
matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same Faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our Faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new Articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this Faith intirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we
merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paâ—d to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell excepting only that that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from Antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hillary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since sayes he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reservâ—d by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more ancient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or Saint Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness and absolution without amends It became a Trumpet and a Leavy for the Holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the Point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new Propositions as well as they can to make sence of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to
place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at Dice and Cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by Gaming making their way to Heaven easier Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their dayes it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labour of love a religion of justice and piety and moral vertues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not requir'd of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem in Saint Chrysostom Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard The sence of these Fathers is this in the words of Saint Augustine God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil Questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor incurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceeded in the practice and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate SECT IV. THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardoned he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sence but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and
certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia said Alphonsus à Castro and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknowledge The thing is true they say but if it were not yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Jesu Christe rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni de profundo lacu libera eos de ore leonis ne absorbeat eos Tartarus ne cadant in obscurum So it is in the Masses pro defunctis And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted and in Hell nothing is forgiven and from hence to conclude that there is no avoiding of Purgatory is too hasty a conclusion let him stay till he comes to Heaven and the final sentence is past and then he will if he finds it to be so have reason to say what he does but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better Saint Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother for the Reasons already expressed though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory It was upon consideration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable nor did she die at all said her Son Hoc documentis ejus morum fide non ficta rationibus certis tenebamus and when he did pray for her Credo jam feceris quod te rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman Saint Austin prayed for pardon for his Mother and did believe the thing was done already but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary Oblation of his mouth So that now all the Objection is vanished S. Austin prayed besides many other Reasons to manifest his kindness not for any need she had But after all this was not Saint Monica a Saint Is she not put in the Roman Calendar and the fourth of May appointed for her Festival And do Saints do Canoniz'd persons use to go to Purgatory But let it be as it will I only desire that this be remembred against a good time that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed I fear it will be denied by and by But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory for the Patriarchs Apostles c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and therefore if it can be made good they have no probability left upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory I have already offered something in proof of this which I shall now review and confirm fully I begin with that of Durantus whom I alledged as confessing that they offer'd for the Patriarchs and Prophets and the Blessed Virgin I intend him for no more for true it is he denies that the Church prayed for them but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them even for the Blessed Virgin Mary her self this he grants I have alledged him a little out of the order because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken and with what boldness they say that offering for them is only giving thanks and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists but no Prayers I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error viz. that Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis is not Prayer and then to make it clear that they did really pray for mercy for pardon for a place of rest for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgatory for it is a great ignorance to suppose that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered it must mean only thanksgiving For it is called in Saint Dionys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Eucharistical prayer and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead And Saint Cyprian speaking of Bishops being made Executors of Testaments saith Si quis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebratur Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit Where offerre and celebrare sacrificium pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer and Saint Cyprian presently after joyns them together pro dormitione ejus oblatio aut deprecatio And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy us'd in the dayes of Pope Innocent the third we shall find this well expounded prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam They offered but the Offering it self was not Eucharistical but deprecatory And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy publish'd at Crackow Per hanc etiam oblationem da aeternam pacem omnibus qui nos precesserunt in fide Christi sanctis Patribus Patriarchis Apostolis Prophetis Martyribus c. which testimony does not only evince that the offering Sacrifices and Oblations for the Saints did signifie praying for them but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever And concerning Saint Chrysostom that which Sixtus Senensis sayes is material to this very purpose Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata conscripsit formulam precandi offerendi pro omnibus fidelibus defunctis praecipue pro animabus beatorum in haec verba Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis Martyribus c. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs but that they intended to do so when they offered the Sacramental Oblations and offerimus is offerimus tibi preces Now since it is so I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus that he acknowledged so much that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints Now though he presently kick'd this down with his foot and denied that they prayed for Saints departed I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman Contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a Witness but because I cited no words of his and my Adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the Argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the Just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists
and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their Prayers and Oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prayes for one sort and only gives thanks for the other as these Gentlemen the Objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the Righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent To which greater light is given by the words of Saint Austin Who is he for whom no man prayes but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of Saint Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his Adversary or for his own cause Saint Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice If Saint Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the Militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful Sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak Argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the Memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of Saint Cyril are very plain The third Allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confessâ—d even by these Gentlemen the Objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the Letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of Saint James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted Saint James and I wonder that he should urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own Allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and Saint Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the Land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the Letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sence and practice of the Greek Canon in this Question And first for Saint James his Liturgy which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of Saint James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine Sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the Region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually shines In the Liturgy of Saint Basil which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this Prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for Religion and have fed thy holy Flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of
in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in it self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in Heaven it is spoken without common wit or sence for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that sills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletivè filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins mind we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy Spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystick prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholick doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sence and the reason of all the world she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Disswasive I suppose these Gentleman may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECT IV. Of the Half-Communion WHEN the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poison to the blood of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poisoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that blood to all the people this was a great and a publick yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as hereticks and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custom and law of giving it in one kind only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it be not an argument of the self-conviction of the man and a resolution to abide in his error and to deceive the people even against his knowledge let all the world judge for the words of the Councils decree as they are set down by Carranza at the end of the decree are these Item praecipimus sub pâ—â—na excommunicationis quod nullus presbyter communicet populum sub utraque specie panis vini I need say no more in this affair To affirm it necessary to do in the Sacraments what Christ did is called heresie and to do so is punished with excommunication But we who follow Christ hope we shall communicate with him and then we are well enough especially since the very institution of the Sacrament in both kinds is a sufficient Commandment to minister and receive it in both kinds For if the Church of Rome upon their supposition only that Christ did barely institute confession do therefore urge it as necessary it will be a strange partiality that the confessed institution by Christ of the two Sacramental species shall not conclude them as necessary as the other upon an Unprov'd supposition And if the institution of the Sacrament in both kinds be not equal to a command then there is no command to receive the bread or indeed to receive the Sacrament at all but it is a mere act of supererogation that the Priests do it at all and an act of favour and grace that they give even the bread it self to the Laity But besides this it is not to be endur'd that the Church of Rome only binds her subjects to observe the decree of abstaining from the cup
other hereticks It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to â—ssue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchres and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholicks did reproach the Catholick Church he says Now I admonish you â—hat at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholick Church by reproaching the manners the of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchres and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of Pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitious I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tryed The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to the condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to this part of the question and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God be so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sence that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered
his disciples should not wear rings or engrave them with the images of their Gods as Moses many ages before made an express law that no man should make any graven cast or painted image and of this he gives two reasons 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we may not attend to sensible things but pass on to the things discernible by the understanding 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The custome of seeing so readily causes that the Majesty of God becomes vile and contemptible and by matter to worship that which is perceiv'd intellectually is to disesteem him by sensation Now the Reader may perceive that S. Clemens speaks against the making of any images not only of Jupiter and the Heathen Gods but of the true God of whatsoever intelligible being we ought to worship and that upon such reasons which will greatly condemn the Roman practices But hence also it is plain how careless and trifling this objector is minding no truth but the number of objections See yet further out of S. Clement Nobis enim est aperte vetitum fallacem artem exercere Non facies enim inquit Propheta cujusvis rei similitudinem we are forbidden to exercise that cosening art viz. of making pictures or images for says the prophet meaning Moses thou shalt not make the likeness of any thing E. W. it seems could not find these words of S. Clement in his Paraenetick He should have said his Protreptick for I know of no Paraenetick that he hath written But E. W. followed the Printers error in the Margent of the Dissuasive and very carefully turned over a book that was not and compared it in bigness with a book that was But I will not suppose this to be ignorance in him but only want of diligence however the words are to be found in the 41. page of this Protreptick or his admonition to the Gentiles and now they are quoted and the very page named only I desire E. W. to observe that in this place S. Clement uses not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not simulachrum but cujusvis rei similitudinem In the place which was quoted out of Origen in his fourth book against Celsus speaking of the Jews he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All makers of Images were turned from their common-wealth for not a painter or a statuary was admitted their laws wholly forbidding them lest any occasion should be given to dull men or that their mind should be turned from the worship of God to earthly things by these temptations Then he quotes the law of God against making images and adds by which law this was intended that being content with the truth of things they should beware of lying figments There it is plain that Origen affirms the law of God to have forbidden the making images any similitude of things in Heaven Earth or Waters which law also he in another place affirms to be of a moral and eternal obligation that is not to be spoken to them only who came out of the terrestrial Egypt and therefore is of Christian duty And of the same mind are S. Irenaeus Tertullian S. Cyprian and S. Austin affirming the whole decalogue except the law of the Sabbath to be an unalterable or natural law But for the further verification of the testimony from Origen against the worship of images in the Primitive Church I thought fit to add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt declarat unus Origenes adversus Celsum but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken From the premisses I infer if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them and the argument is the stronger if we understand their opinion rightly for neither the second Commandment nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Commentaries on them did absolutely prohibit all making of Images but all that was made for religious worship and in order to Adoration according as it is expressed in him who among the Jews collected the negative precepts which Arias Montanus translated in Latin the second of which is signum cultus causa ne facito the third simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato the fourth signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander and prov'd very pungent and material I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some authorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity to prove that in the Primitive Church they did worship images Concerning their general Council viz. the second Nicene I have already made account in the preceeding periods The great S. Basil is with great solemnity brought into the Circus and made to speak for images as apertly plainly and confidently as Bellarmine or the Council of Trent it self His words are these I admit the holy Apostles and Prophets and Martyrs and in my prayer made to God call upon them that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles and not prohibited but are manifested or seen in all our Churches Now I confess these words are home enough and do their business at the first sight and if they prove right S. Basil is on their side and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults and calls them Unanswerable The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum I presently consulted S. Basils works such as I had with me in the Countrey of the Paris Edition by Guillard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which that to Julianus is one viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended I was then put to a melius inquirendum Bellarmine though both he and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irrefragable quotes this authority not upon his own credit but as taking it from the report of a book published 1596 called Synodus Parisiensis which Bellarmine calls Vnworthy to see the light From hence arises this great noise and the fountain being confessedly corrupt what wholsome thing can be expected thence But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bellarmine upon this Question he made no use of this authority he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Basil nor in any Manuscript that is known in
true horse do and yet the painted man is no man and the painted horse is no horse The effect of which discourse is this that the worship of images is but the image of worship hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way nothing real but imaginative and phantastical and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine with their Saints Thomas and Bonaventure yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry because they give no real worship to images But then on the other side how do they mock God and Christ by offering to them that which is nothing by pretending to honour them by honouring their images when the honour they do give to images is it self but imaginary and no more of reality in it than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man However if you will not commit down-right idolatry as some of their Saints teach you then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image you do it not materially but formally not as it is of such a substance but as it is a sign next take care that you observe what sort of image it is and then proportion your right kind to it that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases and according but to a few Doctors and therefore when you have got all these cases together be sure that in all other cases it be transitive But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar you must consider that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship though the kind be perfect and that it is but analogical and it is reductive and it is not absolute not simple not by it self not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example but one and the same individual act with one intention as to the supreme kind though with some little variety if the kinds be differing Now by these easie ready clear and necessary distinctions and rules and cases the people being fully and perfectly instructed there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive reduct accidental consequential analogical and hyperdulical and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days But now after all this the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images and no manner of way and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction for by these no man can ever be at peace or Understand the Commandment which without these laborious devices by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment does lie a little too heavy upon them would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people leaving it out of their manuals breviaries and Catechisms as if when they teach the people to serve God they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments And when at any time they do set it down they only say thus Non facies tibi Idolum which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum yet it means no more than similitude or if the words be of distinct signification yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment it is very ill to represent the Commandment so as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word yet the Commandment might be broken by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word which they conceal But of this more by and by 7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity the very Turks and Jews with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report and that upon at least the most probable grounds in the world Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile Now if we consider that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church or to any grace which is in order to Heaven and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did and yet on the other side that the Jews and Turks are the more much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants the consequent will be that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians and puts limits and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale 8. It is also very scandalous to Christians that is it makes many and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images for this very reason for fear of idolatry and Cassander says that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question saying that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images and declares our Christian doctrine thus then he recites the words above quoted than which Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument The Scripture doth not say that God made the world it only declares the Christian doctrine thus In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account No man doubts but idols want all sense But when they are plac'd in their seats in an honourable sublimity that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice by the very likeness of living members and senses although they be senseless and without life
excused by the wronged preserved person the evil accident was taken off by the pious purpose But he that to dishonour his friend throws a glass of wine in his face and says he did it in sport may be judged by his purpose not by his pretence because the pretence can be confuted by the observation of little circumstances and adherencies of the action which yet peradventure cannot legally be proved Alitèr leges alitèr philosophi tollunt astutias leges quatenus tenere manu res possunt philosophi quatenus ratione intelligentiâ Laws regard the great materialities of obedience the real sensible effect But wise men Philosophers and private Judges take in the accounts of accidental moments and incidencies to the action said Cicero But 3. Gods judgment is otherwise yet for he alone can tell the affection and all that which had secret influence into the event and therefore he can judge by what is secret by the purpose and heart which is indeed the only way of doing exact justice From hence it follows that what ought not to dissolve the friendship of man may yet justly dissolve our friendship with God for he takes other measures than men may or can 16. IV. Because offences against God may be avoided but it is not so in our entercourses with men for God hath told us plainly what is our duty what he expects what will please and what will displease him but men are often governed by Chance and that which pleases them to day shall provoke them to morrow and the next day you shall be their enemy for that for which three days ago they paid you thanks 17. V. If men exact little things it becomes their own case for we sin against our brother and need his pardon and therefore Hanc veniam petimúsque damúsque vicissim We give and ask pardon Det ille veniam facilè cui veniâ est opus But we never found iniquity in God or injustice in the most High and therefore he that is innocent may throw a stone at the criminal 18. VI. God hath in the smallest instance left us without excuse for he hath often warned us of small offences * He hath told us their danger He that despiseth little things shall perish by little and little * He hath told us they asperse us with a mighty guilt for he that offends in one Commandment is guilty of all * He hath told us that we are not certainly excused though our conscience do not manifestly accuse us for so S. Paul I am not hereby justified for God is greater than my conscience * He hath threatned loss of Heaven to him that is guilty of the breach of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though of the least of these Commandments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these which Christ had reckoned in his Sermon where fetters are laid upon thoughts and words shall be called the least in the Kingdom that is he shall be quite shut out for minimus here is as much as nullus minimus vocabitur that is minimi aestimabitur he shall not be esteem'd at all in the accounts of doomsday mercy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the accounts of the Doomsday book where there shall be a discerning of them who shall be glorified from them that are to be punished And this which is one of the severest periods of holy Scripture can by no arts be turned aside from concluding fully in this question Bellarmine says it means only to condemn those who by false doctrines corrupt these severe precepts and teach men as the Pharisees did of old not all those who break them themselves if they teach others to keep them He that breaks one of these and shall teach men so to do so are the words of Christ. But it is a known thing that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftentimes used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that breaks one of these or shall teach others The words were spoken to the persons of the Apostles who were to teach these doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactly as Christ preach'd them but without peradventure they were also intended to all the Church and the following words and the whole analogy of the adjoyned discourse make it clear to every observing Reader and the words plainly say this He that shall break one of these least Commandments and He that shall teach men so each of them shall be called the least in the Kingdom But 2. why did our blessed Lord so severely threaten those that should teach others to break any of these severe Commandments by false interpretation but only because it was so necessary for all to keep them in the true sence and so fearful a thing to any to break them 3. Those who preach severe doctrines to others and touch them not with one of their fingers are guilty of that which Christ reproved in the Pharisees and themselves shall be cast-aways while they preach to others so that the breaking it by disobedience is damnable as well as the breaking it by false interpretation Odi homines ignavâ operâ philosophâ sententiâ Qui cum sibi semitam non sapiant alteri monstrant viam Indeed it is intolerable to teach men to be vicious but it is a hateful baseness to shew others that way which our selves refuse to walk in Whatever therefore may not be allowed to be taught may not also be done for the people are not to be taught evil because they must not do evil but may the teachers do what they may not teach and what the people may not do or is not the same punishment to them both 4. Now upon these grounds this very gloss which Bellarmine gives being a false interpretation of these words of Christ which are a summary of his whole Sermon and as it were the sanction and establishment of the former and following periods into laws must needs be of infinite danger to the inventer and followers of it for this gloss gives leave to men to break the least of these Commandments some way or other if they do not teach others so to do without being affrighted with fears of Hell but in the mean while this gloss teaches or gives leave to others to break them but allows no false interpretation of them but its own 5. But then it is worse with them who teach others so to do and command all men to teach so and if the Roman Doctors who teach that some breach of these Commandments is not of its own nature and by the divine threatnings exclusive of the transgressors from the Kingdom of God be not in some sence a teaching men so to do then nothing is For when God said to Adam That day thou eatest of the forbidden fruit thou shalt die the Tempter said Nay but ye shall not die and so was author to Adam of committing his sin So when our blessed Saviour hath told us that to break one of these least Commandments is exclusive
that it is therefore seasonable to hope because it is a duty and the very hope it self God delights to reward for so said the Apostle Cast not away your confidence which hath great recompence of reward And the Church of God imitating the mercies of our gracious God and Father hath denied to give the Sacrament of peace and mercy to none that seek it Viaticum omnibus in morte positis non est negandum And in the saddest consideration of things that can be suppose it be with him as with Simon Magus suppose that he is in the gall of bitterness in the state of damnation in the guilt of a sin which we know not whether God will pardon or not yet still it is wise and pious counsell that he should pray if peradventure he may be forgiven He I say that considers these things will have cause to be very earnest and very busie to lose no time to remit no labour to quit no hope but humbly passionately diligently set upon that duty of repentance which should have long ago come to some perfection Now because I have as I suppose said enough to make men afraid to put off their repentance to their death-bed yet in behalf of those who have been unfortunately lost in their lives or less instructed or violently tempted or unhappily betrayed and are upon their death-beds because though nothing can be ascertain'd to them yet it is not to be suffered that they should utterly despair I have thought fit to transcribe out of the writings of the ancient Doctors such exhortations as may both instruct and comfort promote duty and give some little door of hope but not add boldness in defiance of all the laws of holiness 30. In an epistle of Celestine Bishop of Rome in S. Austins time we find these words Vera ad Deum conversio in ultimis positorum mente potiùs aestimanda est quà m tempore Quum ergo Dominus sit cordis inspector quovis tempore non est deneganda poenitentia postulanti quum ille se obliget Judici cui occulta omnia noverit revelari True conversion is to be accounted of by the mind rather than by time Therefore repentance is not to be denied to him who at any time asks it And he despairs of the clemency of God who thinks it not sufficient or that it cannot relieve the sinner in an instant Donec sumus in hâc vitâ quantacunque nobis acciderint peccata possibile est omnia ablui per poenitentiam said S. Austin As long as we are alive so long it is possible that the vilest sins that are may be wash'd off by repentance Si vulneratus es adhibe tibi curam dum vivis dum spiras etiam in ipso lecto positus etiam si dici potest animam efflans ut jam de hoc mundo exeas Non impeditur temporis angustiâ misericordia Dei. Quid enim est peccatum ad Dei misericordiam tela araneae quae vento flante nusquam comparet So S. Chrysostom If thou art wounded in thy soul take care of it while thou livest even so long as thou canst breath though thou beest now breathing thy last yet take care still The mercy of God cannot be hindred by time For what is thy sin to Gods mercy even as a spiders web when the wind blows it is gone in an instant Many more there are to the same purpose who all speaking of the mightiness of the Divine mercy do insinuate their meaning to be concerning a miraculous or extraordinary mercy And therefore I shall oppose nothing against this only say that it is very sad when men put their hopes of being sav'd upon a miracle and that without a miracle they must perish But yet then to despair is entring into hell before their time and even a course of the greatest imprudence in the world next to that they are already guilty of that is a putting things to that extremity Dandum interstitium paenitentia said Tacitus And Inter vitae negotia diem mortis oportere aliquid spatium intercedere said Charles the Emperour For Nemo mortem venientem hilaris excepit nisi qui se ad eam diu composuerat said Seneca Repentance must have a space of time and from the affairs of the world to rush into the arms of death is too quick a change for him that would fain be saved If he can in the midst of all these disadvantages it is well but he cannot with chearfulness and joy receive his death unless he bestowed much time and care in preparations against that sad solemnity Now concerning these instruments of hope I am yet to give another account lest this either seem to be an easiness and flattery of souls and not warrantable from any revelation from God or if it be that it is also a perfect destruction of all the former doctrine For if it be inquired thus Hath God declared that death-bed penitents shall not be saved or that they may be saved or hath he said nothing at all of it If he hath said they cannot be saved why then do I bid them hope and so abuse them with a false perswasion If he hath said that they may be saved why do I dispute against it and make them fear where God by a just promise hath given them reason to be confident and hath obliged them to believe they shall be saved If he hath said nothing of it why are not they to be comprehended within the general rules of all returning penitents especially since there was one case specially made for their interest the example of the Thief upon the Cross To this I shall give a clear and plain answer That God hath required such conditions of pardon and that the duty of repentance is of such extent and burden that it cannot be finish'd and perform'd by dying persons after a vicious life is evident from all the former arguments and therefore if we make dying mens accounts upon the stock of Gods usual dealing and open revelation their case is desperate for the preceding reasons But why then do I bid them hope if their case be desperate Either God threatning death to all impenitent persons means not to exact death of all but of some only or else when his holy Spirit describes Repentance in severe characters he secretly means to take less than he says For if it be such a work that cannot possibly be done on a death-bed how then can dying persons be called upon to repent for it is vain to repent if it be impossible to hope but if it be possible to do the work of Repentance on our death-bed but only that it is very difficult there is in this affirmative no great matter Every one confesses that and all evil men put it to the venture For the first part of the dilemma I affirm nothing of it God threatning death to all the impenitent excepts none Except ye repent ye
so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher than the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankind by the incarnation of the Son of God 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgment was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification And the first disparity and excess is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not only one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatned to Adam and not to his Children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a supernatural birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikeness should receive a greater favour this was the excess of the comparison and this is the free gift of God 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. And this is the third degree or measure of excess of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not only receive the aids of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation Even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excess and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgment unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgment and as that judgment was to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and the grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousness of one 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous The summ of all is this By the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evil which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner and so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christ than we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater than the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier than the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sin and death and the other of life and righteousness It were easie to add many particulars out of S. Paul but I shall chuse only to recite the Aethiopick version of the New Testament translated into Latin by that excellent Linguist and worthy Person Dr. Dudly Loftus The words are these And therefore as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the world and by THAT SIN death came upon all men therefore because THAT SIN IS IMPUTED TO ALL MEN even those who knew not what that sin was Until the Law came sin remained in the world not known what it was when sin was not reckoned because as yet at that time the Commandment of the Law was not come Nevertheless death did after reign from Adam until Moses as well in those that did sin as in those that did not sin by that sin of Adam because every one was created in the similitude of Adam and because Adam was a type of him that was to come But not according to the quantity of our iniquity was the grace of God to us If for the offence of one man many are dead how much more by the grace of God and by the gift of him who did gratifie us by one man to wit Jesus Christ life hath abounded upon many Neither for the measure of the sin which was of one man was there the like reckoning or account of the grace of God For if the condemnation of sin proceeding from one man caus'd that by that sin all should be punished how much rather shall his grace purifie us from our sins and give to us eternal life If the sin of one made death to reign and by the offence of one man death did rule in us how much more therefore shall the grace of one man Jesus Christ and his gift justifie us and make us to reign in life eternal And as by the offence of one man many are condemned Likewise also by the righteousness of one man shall every son of man be justified and live And as by one man many are made sinners or as the Syriack Version renders it there were many sinners In like manner again many are made righteous * Now this reddition of the Apostles discourse in this Article is a very great light to the Understanding of the words which not the nature of the thing but the popular glosses have made difficult But here it is plain that all the notice of this Article which those Churches derived from these words of Saint Paul was this That the sin of Adam
or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after Baptism as before and more after than before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the Earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sence of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sinn'd but if he had not sinn'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankind and it is true of temporal death in the sence now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sinn'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankind to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle says Death came in by sin and that Death is the rages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not merely the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I insist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boys and young men at a publick disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin than to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin than joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more than another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them grows irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we chuse If we chuse it is our own if we chuse not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not always there it is that a difference can be For I consider if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil than to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sence be free when it is necessitated by wisdom and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the
their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how far mens doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporal ends so far that it would not be unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctitie and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest to be counted true believers rather then good livers they would rather endeavour to live well then to be accounted of a right Opinion in things beside the Creed For my own particular I cannot but expect that God in his Justice should enlarge the bounds of the Turkish Empire or some other way punish Christians by reason of their pertinacious disputing about things unnecessary undeterminable and unprofitable and for their hating and persecuting their brethen which should be as dear to them as their own lives for not consenting to one another's follies and senseless vanities How many volumes have been writ about Angels about immaculate Conception about Original sin when that all that is solid Reason or clear Revelation in all these three Articles may be reasonably enough comprised in fourty lines And in these trifles and impertinencies men are curiously busie while they neglect those glorious precepts of Christianity and holy life which are the glories of our Religion and would enable us to a happy eternity My Lord Thus far my thoughts have carried me and then I thought I had reason to go further and to examine the proper grounds upon which these perswasions might rely and stand firm in case any body should contest against them For possibly men may be angry at me and my design for I do all them great displeasure who think no end is then well served when their interest is disserved and but that I have writ so untowardly and heavily that I am not worth a confutation possibly some or other might be writing against me But then I must tell them I am prepared of an answer beforehand For I think I have spoken reason in my Book and examined it with all the severity I have and if after all this I be deceived this confirms me in my first opinion and becomes a new Argument to me that I have spoken reason for it furnishes me with a new instance that it is necessary there should be a mutual compliance and Toleration because even then when a man thinks he hath most reason to be confident he may easily be deceived For I am sure I have no other design but the prosecution and advantage of Truth and I may truely use the words of Gregory Nazianzen Non studemus paci in detrimentum verae doctrinae ut facilitatis mansuetudinis famam colligamus but I have writ this because I thought it was necessary and seasonable and charitable and agreeable to the great precepts and design of Christianity consonant to the practice of the Apostles and of the best Ages of the Church most agreeable to Scripture and Reason to Revelation and the nature of the thing and it is such a Doctrine that if there be variety in humane affairs if the event of things be not setled in a durable consistence but is changeable every one of us all may have need of it I shall onely therefore desire that they who will reade it may come to the reading it with as much simplicity of purposes and unmixed desires of truth as I did to the writing it and that no man trouble himself with me or my discourse that thinks beforehand that his Opinion cannot be reasonably altered If he thinks me to be mistaken before he tries let him also think that he may be mistaken too and that he who judges before he hears is mistaken though he gives a right sentence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was good counsel But at a venture I shall leave this sentence of Solomon to his consideration A wise man feareth and departeth from evil but a fool rageth and is confident 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a trick of boys and bold young fellows says Aristotle but they who either know themselves or things or persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peradventure yea peradventure no is very often the wisest determination of a Question For there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle notes foolish and unlearned Questions and it were better to stop the current of such fopperies by silence then by disputing them convey them to posterity And many things there are of more profit which yet are of no more certainty and therefore boldness of assertion except it be in matters of Faith and clearest Revelation is an Argument of the vanity of the man never of the truth of the Proposition for to such matters the saying of Xenophanes in Varro is pertinent and applicable Hominis est haec opinari Dei scire God only knows them and we conjecture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And although I be as desirous to know what I should and what I should not as any of my brethren the sons of Adam yet I find that the more I search the farther I am from being satisfied and make but few discoveries save of my own ignorance and therefore I am desirous to follow the example of a very wise personage Julius Agricola of whom Tacitus gave this testimony RetinuÃtque quod est difficillimum ex scientia modum or that I may take my precedent from within the pale of the Church it was the saying of S. Austin Mallem quidem eorum quae à me quaesivisti habere scientiam quam ignorantiam sed quia id nondum potui magis eligo cautam ignorantiam confiteri quam falsam scientiam profiteri And these words do very much express my sense But if there be any man so confident as Luther sometime was who said that he could expound all Scripture or so vain as Eckius who in his Chrysopassus ventur'd upon the highest and most mysterious Question of Predestination ut in ea juveniles possit calores exercere such persons as these or any that is furious in his opinion will scorn me and my Discourse but I shall not be much mov'd at it onely I shall wish that I had as much knowledge as they think me to want and they as much as they believe themselves to have In the mean time modesty were better for us both and indeed for all men For when men indeed are knowing amongst other things they are able to separate certainties from uncertainties If they be not knowing it is pitty that their ignorance should be triumphant or discompose the publick peace or private confidence And now my Lord that I have inscrib'd this Book to your Lordship although it be a design of doing honour to myself that I have mark'd it with so honour'd and beloved a Name might possibly need as much excuse as it does pardon but that your
Son of God and upon this confession saith the story they both went into the water and the Ethiop was washed and became as white as snow 4. In these particular instances there is no variety of Articles save only that in the annexes of the several expressions such things are expressed as besides that Christ is come they tell from whence and to what purpose And whatsoever is expressed or is to these purposes implyed is made articulate and explicate in the short and admirable mysterious Creed of St. Paul Rom. 10.1 This is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved This is the great and entire complexion of a Christian's faith and since salvation is promised to the belief of this Creed either a snare is laid for us with a purpose to deceive us or else nothing is of prime and original necessity to be believed but this Jesus Christ our Redeemer and all that which is the necessary parts means or main actions of working this redemption for us and the honour for him is in the bowels and fold of the great Article and claims an explicite belief by the same reason that binds us to the belief of its first complexion without which neither the thing could be acted nor the proposition understood 5. For the act of believing propositions is not for it self but in order to certain ends as Sermons are to good life and obedience for excepting that it acknowledges Gods veracity and so is a direct act of Religion believing a revealed proposition hath no excellency in its self but in order to that end for which we are instructed in such revelations Now Gods great purpose being to bring us to him by Jesus Christ Christ is our medium to God obedience is the medium to Christ and Faith the medium to obedience and therefore is to have its estimate in proportion to its proper end and those things are necessary which necessarily promote the end without which obedience cannot be encouraged or prudently enjoyned So that those articles are necessary that is those are fundamental points upon which we build our obedience and as the influence of the Article is to the perswasion or engagement of obedience so they have their degrees of necessity Now all that Christ when he preached taught us to believe and all that the Apostles in their Sermons propound all aim at this that we should acknowledge Christ for our Law-giver and our Saviour so that nothing can be necessary by a prime necessity to be believed explicitely but such things which are therefore parts of the great Article because they either encourage our services or oblige them such as declare Christs greatness in himself or his goodness to us So that although we must neither deny nor doubt of any thing which we know our great Master hath taught us yet salvation is in special and by name annexed to the belief of those Articles only which have in them the endearments of our services or the support of our confidence or the satisfaction of our hopes such as are Jesus Christ the Son of the living God the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus forgiveness of sins by his bloud Resurrection of the dead and life eternal because these propositions qualifie Christ for our Saviour and our Law-Giver the one to engage our services the other to endear them for so much is necessary as will make us to be his servants and his Disciples and what can be required more This only Salvation is promised to the explicite belief of those Articles and therefore those only are necessary and those are sufficient but thus to us in the formality of Christians which is a formality superadded to a former capacity we before we are Christians are reasonable creatures and capable of a blessed eternity and there is a Creed which is the Gentiles Creed which is so supposed in the Christians Creed as it is supposed in a Christian to be a man and that is oportet accedentem ad Deum credere Deum esse esse remuneratorem quaerentium eum If any man will urge farther that whatsoever is deducible from these Articles by necessary consequence is necessary to be believed explicitely I answer It is true if he sees the deduction and coherence of the parts but it is not certain that every man shall be able to deduce whatsoever is either immediately or certainly deducible from these premises and then since salvation is promised to the explicite belief of these I see not how any man can justifie the making the way to heaven narrower than Jesus Christ hath made it it being already so narrow that there are few that find it 7. In the pursuance of this great truth the Apostles or the holy men their Contemporaries and Disciples composed a Creed to be a Rule of Faith to all Christians as appears in Irenaeus Tertullian St. Cyprian St. Austin Ruffinus and divers others which Creed unless it had contained all the intire object of Faith and the foundation of Religion it cannot be imagined to what purpose it should serve and that it was so esteemed by the whole Church of God in all Ages appears in this that since Faith is a necessary pre-disposition to Baptism in all persons capable of the use of reason all Catechumens in the Latine Church coming to Baptism were interrogated concerning their faith and gave satisfaction in the recitation of this Creed And in the East they professed exactly the same faith something differing in words but of the same matter reason design and consequence and so they did at Hierusalem so at Aquileia This was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These articles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 5. Cod. de S. Trinit ad fid Cath. Cùm recta Now since the Apostles and Apostolical men and Churches in these their Symbols did recite particular Articles to a considerable number and were so minute in their recitation as to descend to circumstances it is more than probable that they omitted nothing of necessity and that these Articles are not general principles in the bosom of which many more Articles equally necessary to be believed explicitely and more particular are infolded but that it is as minute an explication of those prima credibilia I before reckoned as is necessary to salvation And therefore Tertullian calls the Creed Regulam fidei quâ salvâ formâ ejus manente in suo ordine possit in Scriptura tractari inquiri si quid videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari Cordis signaculum nostrae militiae Sacramentum S. Ambrose calls it lib. 3. de velandis virgin Comprehensio fidei nostrae atque perfectio by S. Austin Serm. 115. Confessio expositio regula fidei generally by the Ancients The profession of this Creed was the exposition of that
saying of Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The answer of a good conscience towards God For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism it is that Tertullian de resur carnis says Anima non lotione sed responsione sancitur And of this was the prayer of Hilary lib. 12. de Trinit Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre Filio Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò per se primely and universally necessary the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour such as enable him to the great work of redemption according to the predictions concerning him and such as engage and encourage our services For taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell which was not in the old Creed as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to in Tertullian Ruffinus and Irenaeus and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches in the Church of Rome and in the Nicene Creed which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption such as clearly derive the honour to Christ and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions and the whole Creed take it in any of the old Forms is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation whereby we shall be saved viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord and that God raised him from the dead by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian by the second he was our Saviour the other things are but parts and main actions of those two Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation that is in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary or in the prime original necessity of Faith I cannot possibly imagine These do the work and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles 9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed I demand why was it made the Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick or a Jew or an Infidel or to what purpose was it composed Or if this was intended as sufficient did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded know any thing else to be necessary If they did not then either nothing more is necessary I speak of matters of meer belief or they did not know all the will of the Lord and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom or if they did know more was necessary and yet would not insert it they did an act of publick notice and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical when there was no such matter 10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven as it was in the Churches Apostolical Who had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough if they had been necessary and so they did But that they did not insert them into the Creed when they might have done it with as much certainty as these Articles makes it clear to my understanding that other things were not necessary but these were that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles yet these were sufficient and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believed by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very general and a complexion rather than a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it is false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us but if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make
the thing certain to another much less necessary in it self And since God would not bind us upon pain of sin and punishment to make deductions our selves much less would he bind us to follow another mans Logick as an Article of our Faith I say much less another mans for our own integrity for we will certainly be true to our selves and do our own business heartily is as fit and proper to be imployed as another mans ability He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest but I can be more certain that my own purposes and fidelity to my self is such And since it is necessary to rest somewhere lest we should run to an infinity it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolical rested when not only they who are able to judge but others who are not are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication 12. This I say not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for the Church or any of the Antistites religionis or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainly follow from any one of the Articles but I say that no such deduction is fit to be prest on others as an Article of Faith and that every deduction which is so made unless it be such a thing as is at first evident to all is but sufficient to make a humane Faith nor can it amount to a divine much less can be obligatory to bind a person of a differing perswasion to subscribe under pain of losing his Faith or being a Heretick For it is a demonstration that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of damnation but such propositions of which it is certain that God hath spoken and taught them to us and of which it is certain that this is their sence and purpose For if the sence be uncertain we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sence than we are to believe it at all if it were not certain that God delivered it But if it be only certain that God spake it and not certain to what sence our faith of it is to be as indeterminate as its sence and it can be no other in the nature of the thing nor is it consonant to Gods justice to believe of him that he can or will require more And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which without any further probation all wise men will give assent at its first publication And therefore deductions inevident from the evident and plain letter of Faith are as great recessions from the obligation as they are from the simplicity and certainty of the Article And this I also affirm although the Church of any one denomination or represented in a Council shall make the deduction or declaration For unless Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errours less material unless he had promised an absolute universal infallibility etiam in minutioribus unless super-structures be of the same necessity with the foundation and that Gods Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is less certain and that whether they will or no too we may be bound to peace and obedience to silence and to charity but have not a new Article of Faith made and a new proposition though consequent as 't is said from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith nor of absolute necessity Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur said Vincentius Lirinensis whatsoever was of necessary belief is so still and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication but no propositions can be adopted into the foundation The Church hath power to intend our Faith but not to extend it to make our belief more evident but not more large and comprehensive For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the integrity of Christian Faith or salvation of our souls Christ declared all the will of his Father and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries and were faithful in all the house and therefore concealed nothing but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ so they said themselves And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith an Angel or a man might have taught us other things than what they taught without deserving an Anathema but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith and then was their infallibility and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title for she may as well introduce a falshood as lose a truth it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth as that she shall be preserved from all errours as appears John 16.13 Or if she retained all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught then no Age can by declaring any point make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration And indeed if the Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary which before was not necessary I do not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to do especially after so long experience she hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication for by so doing she makes the narrow way to Heaven narrower and chalks out one path more to the Devil than he had before and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest For before differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions and now after this declaration if they cannot there is no other alteration made but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and belief should have been beatified persons For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errours were not discovered for if they had been contested for that would have been called discovery enough vel errores emendassent vel ab Ecclesiâ ejecti fuissent But it is better as it was they went to heaven by that good-fortune whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devil And yet there were some errours particularly that of Saint Cyprian that was discovered and he went to heaven 't is thought possibly they might so too for all this pretence But suppose it true yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or been ignorant does more good
than the damning of those many souls occasionally but yet certainly and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodness to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unless he had furnished these men with an infallible judgment and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never do it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designs of which I think no Arguments can make us certain what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unless the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believed with the Articles Apostolical and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider 13. But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unless a new building be to be made the foundation is the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himself yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary belief to all which are the only foundation they cannot be several in several Ages and to several persons Nay the sentence and declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produced or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habit of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more than the act of the visive faculty can add visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and required of us to believe we need not we cannot go any farther for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as far off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be believed by all that know them yet it is not necessary all should know them and that all should know them in the same sence and interpretation is neither probable nor obligatory but therefore since these things are to be distinguished by some differences of necessary and not necessary whether or no is not the declaration of Christ and his Apostles affixing salvation to the belief of some great comprehensive Articles and the act of the Apostles rendring them as explicite as they thought convenient and consigning that Creed made so explicite as a tessera of a Christian as a comprehension of the Articles of his belief as a sufficient disposition and an express of the Faith of a Catechumen in order to Baptism whether or no I say all this be not sufficient probation that these only are of absolute necessity that this is sufficient for meer belief in order to Heaven and that therefore whosoever believes these Articles heartily and explicitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint John's expression is God dwelleth in him I leave it to be considered and judged of from the premises Only this if the old Doctors had been made Judges in these Questions they would have passed their affirmative for to instance in one for all of this it was said by Tertullian Regula quidem fidei una omnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis c. Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis operante scil proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei This Symbol is the one sufficient immoveable unalterable and unchangeable rule of Faith that admits no increment or decrement but if the integrity and unity of this be preserved in all other things men may take a liberty of enlarging their knowledges and prophecyings according as they are assisted by the grace of God SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 1. AND thus I have represented a short draught of the Object of Faith and its foundation the next consideration in order to our main design is to consider what was and what ought to be the judgment of the Apostles concerning Heresy For although there are more kinds of vices than there are of vertues yet the number of them is to be taken by accounting the transgressions of their vertues and by the limits of Faith we may also reckon the Analogy and proportions of Heresy that as we have seen who was called faithful by the Apostolical men we may also perceive who were listed by them in the Catalogue of Hereticks that we in our judgmenâ—s may proceed accordingly 2. And first the word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently in a good sence for a Sect or Division of Opinion and men following it or sometimes in a bad sence for a false Opinion signally condemned but these kind of people were then call'd Antichrists and false Prophets more frequently than Hereticks and then there were many of them in the World But it is
videantur said Vincent Lirinensis in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam intellectum à fastidio revocandum as S. Austin gives a reason that all that err honestly are therefore to be pitied and tolerated because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other 8. The sum is this Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths and the great rule of Faith to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries and matters of Question upon which there is a vail since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading since a various Interpunction a parenthesis a letter an accent may much alter the sence since some places have divers literal sences many have spiritual mystical and Allegorical meanings since there are so many tropes metonymies ironies hyperboles proprieties and improprieties of language whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression are not easie to be apprehended and whose explication by reason of our imperfections must needs be dark sometimes weak sometimes unintelligible and lastly since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture as searching the Originals conference of places parity of reason and analogie of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties And therefore a wise man that considers this would not willingly be prescribed to by others and therefore if he also be a just man he will not impose upon others for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him unless he could secure him from errour So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying and Interpreting Scripture a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture or determine Questions 1. IN the next place we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture and determining Questions which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny The first and principal is Tradition which is pretended not only to expound Scripture Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture And in this topick not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture but also it pretends to expound Scripture and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions and teach us plainly and assure us infallibly of all truths which they require us to believe we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe because without a crime without some humane interest or collaterall design we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide 2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie 3. For first I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions sometimes they did call some Traditions such not which they knew to be so but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so Such as was that of S. Austin ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse Now suppose this rule probable that 's the most yet it is not certain It might come by custome whose Original was not known but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule and that general rule not certain but at the most probable in any thing and certainly false in some things it is wonder if the productions that is their judgments and pretence fail so often And if I should but instance in all the particulars in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages I should multiply them to a troublesome variety for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles that if any man could with any colour pretend to it he might abuse the whole Church and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles In the first Age after the Apostles Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth and his Saints with him in temporal felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysius of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracian the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolical And so it happened in the case of the Arrian heresie which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolical as Theodoret reports and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture than from Tradition they would have fail'd much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this trial was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so clear but both sides might with some fairness pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresie the Heretick Arâ—emon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zephyrinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usual to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended than confuted and I doubt not but oftener done than discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiastical See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Syprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unless one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unless peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denied it And the sixth general Synod approves of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universal against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but by a consequence which he thought probable and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescribed nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholick Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Council Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolical But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Original sin by the custome of exorcism and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be proved that he that shall affirm it shall gain only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 4. Secondly I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive times so near the Ages Apostolical was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much increased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted than now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many wars so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolical whose beginning they knew not now quite contrary we cannot safely believe them to be Apostolical unless we do know their beginning to have been from the Apostles For this consisting of probabilities and particulars which put together make up a moral demonstration the Argument which I now urge hath been growing these fifteen hundred years and if anciently there was so much as to evacuate the Authority of Tradition much more is there now absolutely to destroy it when all the particulars which time and infinite variety of humane accidents have been amassing together are now concentred and are united by way of constipation Because every Age and every great change and every heresie and every interest hath increased the difficulty of finding out true Traditions 5. Thirdly There are very many Traditions which are lost and
yet they are concerning matters of as great consequence as most of those Questions for the determination whereof Traditions are pretended It is more than probable that as in Baptism and the Eucharist the very forms of ministration are transmitted to us so also in confirmation and ordination and that there were special directions for visitation of the sick and explicite interpretations of those difficult places of S. Paul which S. Peter affirmed to be so difficult that the ignorant do wrest them to their own damnation and yet no Church hath conserved these or those many more which S. Basil affirms to be so many that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the day would fail him in the very simple enumeration of all Traditions Ecclesiastical And if the Church hath failed in keeping the great variety of Traditions it will hardly be thought a fault in a private person to neglect Tradition which either the whole Church hath very much neglected inculpably or else the whole Church is very much to blame And who can ascertain us that she hath not entertained some which are no Traditions as well as lost thousands that are That she did entertain some false Traditions I have already proved but it is also as probable that some of those which these Ages did propound for Traditions are not so as it is certain that some which the first Ages called Traditions were nothing less 6. Fourthly There are some opinions which when they began to be publickly received began to be accounted prime Traditions and so became such not by a native title but by adoption and nothing is more usual than for the Fathers to colour their popular opinion with so great an appellative S. Austin called the communicating of Infants an Apostolical Tradition and yet we do not practise it because we disbelieve the Allegation And that every custome which at first introduction was but a private fancy or singular practice grew afterwards into a publick rite and went for a Tradition after a while continuance appears by Tertullian who seems to justifie it Non enim existimas tu licitum esse cuicunque fideli constituere quod Deo placere illi visum fuerit ad disciplinam salutem And again A quocunque traditore censetur nec authorem respicias sed authoritatem And S. Hierome most plainly Praecepta majorum Apostolicas Traditiones quisque existimat And when Irenaeus had observed that great variety in the keeping of Lent which yet to be a fourty days Fast is pretended to descend from Tradition Apostolical some fasting but one day before Easter some two some fourty and this even long before Irenaeus's time he gives this reason Varietas illa jejunii coepit apud Majores nostros qui non accuratè consuetudinem eorum qui vel simplicitate quâdam vel privatâ authoritate in posterum aliquid statuissent observârant ex translatione Christophorsoni And there are yet some points of good concernment which if any man should question in a high manner they would prove indeterminable by Scripture or sufficient reason and yet I doubt not their confident Defenders would say they are opinions of the Church and quickly pretend a Tradition from the very Apostles and believe themselves so secure that they could not be discovered because the Question never having been disputed gives them occasion to say that which had no beginning known was certainly from the Apostles For why should not Divines doe in the Question of reconfirmation as in that of rebaptization Are not the grounds equal from an indeleble character in one as in the other and if it happen such a Question as this after contestation should be determined not by any positive decree but by the cession of one part and the authority and reputation of the other does not the next Age stand fair to be abused with a pretence of Tradition in the matter of reconfirmation which never yet came to a serious Question For so it was in the Question of rebaptization for which there was then no more evident Tradition than there is now in the question of reconfirmation as I proved formerly but yet it was carried upon that Title 7. Fifthly There is great variety in the probation of Tradition so that what ever is proved to be Tradition is not equally and alike credible for nothing but universal Tradition is of it self credible other Traditions in their just proportion as they partake of the degrees of universality Now that a Tradition be universal or which is all one that it be a credible Testimony S. Irenaeus requires that Tradition should derive from all the Churches Apostolical And therefore according to this rule there was no sufficient medium to determine the Question about Easter because the Eastern and Western Churches had several Traditions respectively and both pretended from the Apostles Clemens Alexandrinus sayes it was a secret Tradition from the Apostles that Christ preached but one year But Irenaeus says it did derive from Hereticks and says that he by Tradition first from S. John and then from his Disciples received another Tradition that Christ was almost fifty years old when he died and so by consequence preached almost twenty years both of them were deceived and so had all that had believed the report of either pretending Tradition Apostolical Thus the custome in the Latine Church of fasting on Saturday was against that Tradition which the Greeks had from the Apostles and therefore by this division and want of consent which was the true Tradition was so absolutely indeterminable that both must needs lose much of their reputation But how then when not only particular Churches but single persons are all the proof we have for a Tradition And this often happened I think S. Austin is the chief Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary The Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first and from him by others The procession of the holy Ghost from the Son which is an Article the Greek Church disavowes derives from the Tradition Apostolical as it is pretended and yet before S. Austin we hear nothing of it very clearly or certainly for as much as that whole mysterie concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture and so little derived to them by Tradition that till the Council of Nice you shall hardly find any form of worship or personal address of devotion to the holy Spirit as Erasmus observes and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified And for this particular in which I instance whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions but because one man hath said so and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true Now in this case wherein
in France and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer and of the Roman Communion disputed against the reception And this is a known condition in the Canon Law but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councils have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council And there is great Reason it should for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented so it resolves into it and though it may have all the legal power yet it hath not all the natural for more able men may be unsent then sent and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church It is therefore most fit that since the legal power that is the externall was passed over to the body representative yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remain in the diffusive as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no and so to proceed accordingly For unless it be in matters of justice in which the interest of a third person is concern'd no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right in matters personall proper and of so high concernment It is most unnatural and unreasonable But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace the best humane Judicatories in the world rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversie and the greatest probability from humane Authority besides these advantages I say I know nothing greater that general Councils can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man And as there was never any Council so general but it might have been more general for in respect of the whole Church even Nice it self was but a small Assembly so there is no Decree so well constituted but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Council And therefore general Councils and National and Provinciall and Diocesan in their severall degrees are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the Fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 1. BUT since the Question between the Council and the Pope grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf as to believe General Councils to be nothing but Pomps and Solemnities of the Catholick Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresie yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II. and therefore it concerns us now to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II. while he was the wise and learned Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preeminence of a Council and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Council though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councils give none and yet as soon as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peter's Chair which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a General Council But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universal and the Infallible Doctor that he breaths Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresie the Rule of Faith being nothing else but conformity to the Chair of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complain that his choice is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himself And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to finde it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be couzened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider 2. And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plain then the Commission given to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keys And again For thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and enabled with an infallible power so to do And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's successors as to his Person that must by all means be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene In this Tradition Apostolical always was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholick To this Church errour or perfidiousness cannot have access Against this See the gates of Hell cannot prevail For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock And whoever
eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his final sentence But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholick Church Dignum patellâ operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions of the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomly laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 3. First Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church his faith might not fail for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs lest the current be either spoil'd or obstructed that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI. or Gregory or Clement 1500 years after should be preserved by virtue of that prayer which the form of words the time the occasion the manner of the address the effect it self and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal And when it was more then personal S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome but the whole Catholick Church say Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris Volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia esse oratum says Bellarmine of them and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope Quaere de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare an de ipso Papa qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hîc dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve For it may be remembred that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter the good man fell foully and denied his Master shamefully And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence then for himself for whom it was directly and in the first intention And if not then for all this Argument the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief predecessor Peter But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope when he denied his Master But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop when the prayer was made for him because the prayer was made before his fall that is before that time in which it is confessed he was not as yet made Pope And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it passes the length of my hand to span But then also if it be supposed and allowed that these words shall intail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome why shall not Constantinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sate why shall not Ephesus where S. John sate or Jerusalem where S. James sate for Christ prayed for them all ut Pater sanctificaret eos suâ veritate Joh. 17. 4. Secondly For tibi dabo claves was it personal or not If it were then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it If it were not then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented onely his Successors and not the whole Colledge of Apostles and the whole Hierarchy For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church he might fair enough be the representative of the whole Colledge and receive it in their right as well as his own which also is certain that it was so for the same promise of binding and loosing which certainly was all that the Keys were given for was made afterward to all the Apostles Matt. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the style of the Church is the same thing in other words was actually given to all the Apostles and unless that was the performing the first and second promise we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when or whether yet or no the promise be performed That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination and to the rest by Communication society and adherence but that promise which was made to Peter first but not for himself but for all the Colledge and for all their Successors and then made the second time to them all without representation but in diffusion and perform'd to all alike in presence except S. Thomas And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him I know not I find no record for that but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission the Church yet never doubted nor had she any reason But this matter is too notorious I say no more to it but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia if the Keys were onely given and so promised to S. Peter that the Church hath not the Keys then the Church can neither bind nor loose remit nor retain which God forbid If any man should endeavour to answer this Argument I leave him and S. Austin to contest it 5. Thirdly For Pasce oves there is little in that Allegation besides the boldness of the Objectors for were not all the Apostles bound to feed Christ's sheep had they not all the Commission from Christ and Christ's Spirit immediately S. Paul had certainly Did not S. Peter himself say to all
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
pleasing of men is his best reward and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a Truth SECT XIV Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing and when Persecution first came in AND thus this Truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion when there were no collateral designs on foot nor interests to be served nor passions to be satisfied In Saint Paul's time though the censure of Heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards and all that were called Hereticks were clearly such and highly criminal yet as their crime was so was their censure that is spiritual They were first admonished once at least for so Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose and Hierom read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men and at that time some read it Post unam alteram admonitionem reject a Heretick Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings that 's the penalty Saint John expresses it by not eating with them not bidding them God speed but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denied Christ to be come in the flesh direct Antichrists And let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case all that I observe is that since in so damnable Doctrines nothing but spiritual censure separation from the communion of the faithfull was enjoyned and prescribed we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent if in matters of dispute and innocent question and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of Death 2. For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing to say that Excommunication is a greater punishment and killing a less and therefore who-ever may be excommunicated may also be put to death which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses For first Excommunication is not directly and of itself a greater punishment then corporal Death because it is indefinite and incompleat and in order to a farther punishment which if it happens then the Excommunication was the inlet to it if it does not the Excommunication did not signifie half so much as the loss of a member much less Death For it may be totally ineffectual either by the iniquity of the proceeding or repentance of the person and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please if he will not but perseveres in his impiety then it is himself that brings the Censure to effect that actuates the judgement and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly but when it is at worst it does not kill the Soul it onely consigns it to that death which it had deserved and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church Thirdly and yet Excommunication is to admirable purpose for whether it refers to the person censured or to others it is prudentiall in itself it is exemplary to others it is medicinal to all For the person censured is by this means threatned into piety and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him because by fiction of Law or as it were by a Sacramental representment the pains of hell are made presentiall to him and so becomes an act of prudent judicature and excellent discipline and the best instrument of spiritual Government because the nearer the threatning is reduced to matter and the more present and circumstantiate it is made the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter And this is the full sense and power of Excommunication in its direct intention consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematiz'd But besides this I know no warrant to affirm any thing of Excommunication for the sentence of the Church does but declare not effect the final sentence of damnation Whoever deserves Excommunication deserves damnation and he that repents shall be saved though he die out of the Churche's externall Communion and if he does not repent he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate 3. But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporal Death yet it follows not because Hereticks may be excommunicate therefore killed for from a greater to a less in a several kinde of things the argument concludes not It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this less An Angel cannot beget a man and yet he can doe a greater matter in that kinde of operations which we term spiritual and Angelicall And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd then because of Excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain for in Bulla Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday-Thursday but if by the same power he might also be put to death as upon this ground he may the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of Saint Peter's Patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprized But besides this it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory from whence Excommunications issue for trifles for fees for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed for any thing if this be greater then Death how great a tyranny is that which doth more then kill men for lesse then trifles or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence and supposition 4. Well however zealous the Apostles were against Hereticks yet none were by them or their dictates put to death The death of Ananias and Sapphira and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this for they were miraculous inflictions and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ neither of them concerned the case of this present question Or if the case were the same yet the Authority is not the same For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible and of a power competent but no man at this day is so But as yet people were converted by Miracles and Preaching and Disputing and Hereticks by the same means were redargued and all men instructed none tortured for their Opinion And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons and were impatient and peevish by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no Age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting
proper instrument but as a consequent is to an antecedent in a chain of causes accidentally and by positive institution depending upon each other Who can help it if men will say that it happened that they recovered after the taking Physick but then was the time in which they should have been well however The best confutation of them is to deny Physick to them when they need and try what nature will doe for them without the help of art The case is all one in this Question this onely excepted that in this case it is more unreasonable then in the matter of Physick because the Spirit is expresly signified to be the baptizer in the forecited place of Saint Paul From hence we argue that since the Spirit is ministred in Baptism and that Infants are capable of the Spirit the Spirit of adoption the Spirit of incorporation into the body of Christ the Spirit sealing them to the day of redemption the Spirit intitling them to the Promises of the Gospel the Spirit consigning to them God's part of the Covenant of Grace they are also capable of Baptism For whoever is capable of the Grace of the Sacrament is capable of the sign or Sacrament itself To this last clause the Anab. answers two things First that the Spirit of God was conveyed sometimes without Baptism I grant it but what then Therefore Baptism is not the sign or ministery of the Holy Ghost It follows not For the Spirit is the great wealth and treasure of Christians and is conveyed in every ministery of Divine appointment in Baptism in Confirmation in Absolution in Orders in Prayer in Benediction in assembling together Secondly The other thing they answer is this that it is not true that they who are capable of the same grace are capable of the same sign for females were capable of the righteousness of Faith but not of the seal of Circumcision I reply that the Proposition is true not in natural capacities but in spiritual and religious regards that is they who in Religion are declared capable of the grace are by the same Religion capable of the Sacrament or sign of that grace But naturally they may be uncapable by accident as in the Objection is mentioned But then this is so far from invalidating the Argument that it confirms it in the present instance Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis For even the Jewish females although they could not be circumcised yet they were baptized even in those days as I have proved already and although their natural indisposition denied them to be circumcised yet neither nature nor Religion forbad them to be baptized and therefore since the Sacrament is such a ministery of which all are naturally capable and none are forbidden by the Religion the Argument is firm and unshaken and concludes with as much evidence and certainty as the thing requires Ad 10. The last Argument from Reason is That it is reasonable to suppose that God in the period of Grace in the days of the Gospel would not give us a more contracted comfort and deal with us by a narrower hand then with the Jewish babes whom he sealed with a Sacrament as well as enriched with a grace and therefore openly consigned them to comfort and favour Ad 22. To this they answer that we are to trust the word without a sign and since we contend that the Promise belongs to us and to our children why do we not believe this but require a sign I reply that if this concludes any thing it concludes against the Baptism of men and women for they hear and reade and can believe the Promise and it can have all its effects and produce all its intentions upon men but yet they also require the sign they must be baptized And the reason why they require it is because Christ hath ordained it And therefore although we can trust the Promise without a sign and that if we did not this manner of sign would not make us believe it for it is not a miracle that is a sign proving but it is a Sacrament that is a sign signifying and although we do trust the Promise even in the behalf of Infants when they cannot be baptized yet by the same reason as we trust the Promise so we also use the Rite both in obedience to Christ and we use the Rite or the Sacrament because we believe the Promise and if we did not believe that the Promise did belong to our children we would not baptize them Therefore this is such an impertinent quarrel of the Anabaptists that it hath no strength at all but what it borrows from a cloud of words and the advantages of its representment As God did openly consign his grace to the Jewish babes by a Sacrament so he does to ours and we have reason to give God thanks not onely for the comfort of it for that 's the least part of it but for the ministery and conveyance of the real blessing in this Holy mystery Ad 23 24 25. That which remains of Objections and answers is wholly upon the matter of examples and precedents from the Apostles and first descending Ages of the Church but to this I have already largely spoken in a Discourse of this Question and if the Anabaptists would be concluded by the practice of the Universal Church in this Question it would quickly be at an end For although sometimes the Baptism of children was deferred till the age of reason and choice yet it was onely when there was no danger of the death of the children and although there might be some advantages gotten by such delation yet it could not be endured that they should be sent out of the world without it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Gregory Nazianzen It is better they should be sanctified even when they understand it not then that they should go away from hence without the seal of perfection and sanctification Secondly But that Baptism was amongst the Ancients sometimes deferred was not always upon a good reason but sometimes upon the same account as men now adays defer repentance or put off Confession and Absolution and the Communion till the last day of their life that their Baptism might take away all the sins of their life Thirdly It is no strange thing that there are examples of late Baptism because Heathenism and Christianity were so mingled in towns and cities and private houses that it was but reasonable sometimes to stay till men did chuse their Religion from which it was so likely they might afterwards be tempted Fourthly The Baptism of Infants was always most notorious and used in the Churches of Africa as is confessed by all that know the Ecclesiastical Story Fifthly Among the Jews it was one and all if the Major domo believed he believed for himself all his family and they all followed him to Baptism even before they were instructed and therefore it is that we find mention of
with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation 17. But for the Article itself We all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a consociation of divers actions of Religion and worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the understanding and does not communicate with the will For all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to pass an act of adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself 18. Secondly And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty And what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remains will never be brought to it there is no fear of that and he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefs does no hurt but altering the Opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence onely it hath its being criminall 19. Thirdly However if it were Idolatry I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a judiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie 20. And thus in these two Instances I have given account what is to be done in Toleration of diversity of Opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a Question rather politicall then religious for as for the concernments of Religion these Instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged 21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a Commonwealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equal grounds of State and policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turned from Christian to Jew or Moor as many are daily in Spain and Portugall 22. And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no power over them qui forâ—s sunt as Jews are For it is true the Church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocese yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be killed because they are not of the Christian Communion but they â—re living persons parts of the Commonwealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their Opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are hath equal power over their persons for a Christian is no more a Subject then a Jew is the Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Jew by being no Christian is not forâ—s or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the Secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion Which thing is of more consideration because the Jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capital and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urged upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the mother to doe with them any more then with the Jews they are in some relation or habitude of the family for they are consigned with the same Baptism profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour to whose service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with
them that is the worst that is to be done to such a man in Saint Paul's judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1. FRom these Premisses we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God to make the Way to Heaven streighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our Opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we overvalue is impious and schismaticall it infers tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both it dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consigns the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a good life bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and societies 2. And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authours of that Opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churche's peace nor magisterially prescribed to others were in that disagreeing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unitas faciunt Catholicos said Saint Augustin And to this sense is that of Saint Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and Saint Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitatis effectus est unio voluntatum non opinionum True Faith which leads to Charity leads on to that which unites wills and affections not Opinions 3. Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno published his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit as preferring the peace of Christendom and the union of charity far before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion which never was nor ever will be real and substantial and although it were very convenient if it could be had yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible And if men please whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutuall permission of Opinion and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity And we have seen it that all Sects of Christians when they have an end to be served upon a third have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for and which they formerly denied but now grant that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third The Arians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks the Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous For that they do permit each others disagreeings for their interests sake convinceth them of the lawfulness of the thing or else the unlawfulness of their own proceedings And therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction for then that good end would hallow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious while it serves the design of religious purposes SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions and how far they may doe it 1. AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions it is to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches For if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion then they communicate with them as they are servants of Christ as disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his laws and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the servants of their common Lord. For since no Church of one name is infallible a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular that she errs in some Article or other either he cannot communicate with any or else he may communicate with all that do not make a sin or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion And therefore as every particular Church is bound to tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated so every particular person is bound to tolerate her that is not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second so she will give me the right hand of fellowship though I affirm it therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ and retain all matters of Faith and necessity But this thing will scarce be reduced to practice for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same Confession which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession Articles doe much hurt by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the
diligence and labour to what sufferings or journeyings he is oblig'd for the procuring of this ministery there must be debita sollicitudo a real providential zealous care to be where it is to be had is the duty of every Christian according to his own circumstances but they who will not receive it unless it be brought to their doors may live in such places and in such times where they shall be sure to miss it and pay the price of their neglect of so great a ministery of Salvation Turpissima est jactura quae per negligentiam sit He is a Fool that loses his good by carelesness But no man is zealous for his Soul but he who not only omits no opportunity of doing it advantage when it is ready for him but makes and seeks and contrives opportunities Si non necessitate sed incuriâ voluntate remanserit as S. Clement's expression is If a man wants it by necessity it may by the overflowings of the Divine Grace be supplied but not so if negligence or choice causes the omission 3. Our way being made plain we may proceed to other places of Scripture to prove the Divine Original of Confirmation It was a Plant of our Heavenly Father's planting it was a Branch of the Vine and how it springs from the Root Christ Jesus we have seen it is yet more visible as it was dressed and cultivated by the Apostles Now as soon as the Apostles had received the Holy Spirit they preached and baptized and the inferior Ministers did the same and S. Philip particularly did so at Samaria the Converts of which place received all the Fruits of Baptism but Christians though they were they wanted a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something to make them perfect The other part of the Narrative I shall set down in the words of S. Luke Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God they sent unto them Peter and John Who when they were come down prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost For as yet he was fallen upon none of them only they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus Then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost If it had not been necessary to have added a new solemnity and ministration it is not to be supposed the Apostles Peter and John would have gone from Jerusalem to impose hands on the Baptized at Samaria Id quod deerat à Petro Joanne factum est ut Oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus said S. Cyprian It was not necessary that they should be Baptized again only that which was wanting was performed by Peter and John that by prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost should be invocated and poured upon them The same also is from this place affirmed by P. Innocentius the First S. Hierom and many others and in the Acts of the Apostles we find another instance of the celebration of this Ritual and Mystery for it is signally expressed of the Baptized Christians at Ephesus that S. Paul first Baptized them and then laid his hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost And these Testimonies are the great warranty for this Holy Rite Quod nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs Impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc Spiritûs Sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit universis said Eucherius Lugdunensis in his Homily of Pentecost The same thing that is done now in Imposition of hands on single persons is no other than that which was done upon all Believers in the descent of the Holy Ghost it is the same Ministery and all deriving from the same Authority Confirmation or Imposition of hands for the collation of the Holy Spirit we see was actually practised by the Apostles and that even before and after they preached the Gospel to the Gentiles and therefore Amalarius who entred not much into the secret of it reckons this Ritual as derived from the Apostles per consuetudinem by Catholick custom which although it is not perfectly spoken as to the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Authority of it yet he places it in the Apostles and is a witness of the Catholick succeeding custom and practice of the Church of God Which thing also Zanchius observing though he followed the sentiment of Amalarius and seemed to understand no more of it yet says well Interim says he exempla Apostolorum veteris Ecclesiae vellem pluris aestimari I wish that the Example of the Apostles and the Primitive Church were of more value amongst Christians It were very well indeed they were so but there is more in it than mere Example These examples of such solemnities productive of such spiritual effects are as S. Cyprian calls them Apostolica Magisteria the Apostles are our Masters in them and have given Rules and Precedents for the Church to follow This is a Christian Law and written as all Scriptures are for our instruction But this I shall expresly prove in the next Paragraph 4. We have seen the Original from Christ the Practice and exercise of it in the Apostles and the first Converts in Christianity that which I shall now remark is that this is established and passed into a Christian Doctrine The warranty for what I say is the words of S. Paul where the Holy Rite of Confirmation so called from the effect of this ministration and expressed by the Ritual part of it Imposition of Hands is reckoned a Fundamental point 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of Hands of Resurrection from the Dead and Eternal Judgment Here are six Fundamental points of S. Paul's Catechism which he laid as the Foundation or the beginning of the institution of the Christian Church and amongst these Imposition of hands is reckoned as a part of the Foundation and therefore they who deny it dig up Foundations Now that this Imposition of hands is that which the Apostles used in confirming the Baptized and invocating the Holy Ghost upon them remains to be proved For it is true that Imposition of hands signifies all Christian Rites except Baptism and the Lord's Supper not the Sacraments but all the Sacramentals of the Church it signifies Confirmation Ordination Absolution Visitation of the Sick Blessing single persons as Christ did the Children brought to him and blessing Marriages all these were usually ministred by Imposition of hands Now the three last are not pretended to be any part of this Foundation neither Reason Authority nor the Nature of the thing suffer any such pretension The Question then is between the first three First Absolution of Penitents cannot be meant here not only because we never read that the Apostles did use that Ceremony in their Absolutions
but because the Apostle speaking of the Foundation in which Baptism is and is reckoned one of the principal parts in the Foundation there needed no Absolution but Baptismal for they and we believing one Baptism for the Remission of Sins this is all the Absolution that can be at first and in the Foundation The other was secunda post naufragium tabula it came in after when men had made a shipwrack of their good conscience and were as S. Peter says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgetful of the former cleansing and purification and washing of their old sins Secondly It cannot be meant of Ordination and this is also evident 1. Because the Apostle says he would thence-forth leave to speak of the Foundation and go on to perfection that is to higher Mysteries Now in Rituals of which he speaks there is none higher than Ordination 2. The Apostle saying he would speak no more of Imposition of Hands goes presently to discourse of the mysteriousness of the Evangelical Priesthood and the honour of that vocation by which it is evident he spake nothing of Ordination in the Catechism or Narrative of Fundamentals 3. This also appears from the context not only because Laying on of hands is immediately set after Baptism but also because in the very next words of his Discourse he does enumerate and apportion to Baptism and Confirmation their proper and proportioned effects to Baptism illumination according to the perpetual style of the Church of God calling Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an enlightning and to Confirmation he reckons tasting the Heavenly gift and being made partakers of the Holy Ghost by the thing signified declaring the Sign and by the mystery the Rite Upon these words S. Chrysostom discoursing says That all these are Fundamental Articles that i◠that we ought to Repent from dead works to be Baptized into the Faith of Christ and be made worthy of the gift of the Spirit who is given by Imposition of Hands and we are to be taught the mysteries of the Resurrection and Eternal Judgment This Catechism says he is perfect so that if any man have Faith in God and being baptized is also confirmed and so tastes the Heavenly gift and partakes of the Holy Ghost and by hope of the Resurrection tastes of the good things of the World to come if he falls away from this state and turns Apostate from this whole Dispensation digging down and turning up these Foundations he shall never be built again he can never be Baptized again and never be Confirmed any more God will not begin again and go over with him again he cannot be made a Christian twice If he remains upon these Foundations though he sins he may be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Repentance and by a Resuscitation of the Spirit if he have not wholly quenched him but if he renounces the whole Covenant disown and cancel these Foundations he is desperate he can never be renewed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Title and Oeconomy of Repentance This is the full explication of this excellent place and any other ways it cannot reasonably be explicated but therefore into this place any notice of Ordination cannot come no Sence no Mystery can be made of it or drawn from it but by the interposition of Confirmation the whole context is clear rational and intelligible This then is that Imposition of hands of which the Apostle speaks Vnus hic locus abunde testatur c. saith Calvin This one place doth abundantly witness that the original of this Rite or Ceremony was from the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom for by this Rite of Imposition of hands they receiv'd the Holy Ghost Fo◠though the Spirit of God was given extra-regularly and at all times as God was pleas'd to do great things yet this Imposition of hands was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this was the Ministery of the Spirit For so we receive Christ when we hear and obey his word we eat Christ by Faith and we live by his Spirit and yet the Blessed Eucharist is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Body and Blood of Christ. Now as the Lord's Supper is appointed ritually to convey Christ's Body and Bloud to us so is Confirmation ordain'd ritually to give unto us the Spirit of God And though by accident and by the overflowings of the Spirit it may come to pass that a man does receive perfective graces alone and without Ministeries external yet such a man without a miracle is not a perfect Christian ex statuum vitae dispositione but in the ordinary ways and appointment of God and until he receive this Imposition of hands and be Confirmed is to be accounted an imperfect Christian. But of this afterwards I shall observe one thing more out of this testimony of S. Paul He calls it the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands by which it does not only appear to be a lasting ministery because no part of the Christian Doctrine could change or be abolished but hence also it appears to be of Divine institution For if it were not S. Paul had beed guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves in the Scribes and Pharisees and should have taught for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Which because it cannot be suppos'd it must follow that this Doctrine of Confirmation or Imposition of hands is Apostolical and Divine The Argument is clear and not easie to be reprov'd SECT II. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery YEA but what is this to us It belong'd to the days of wonder and extraordinary The Holy Ghost breath'd upon the Apostles and Apostolical men but then he breath'd his last recedente gratiâ recessit disciplina when the Grace departed we had no further use of the Ceremony In answer to this I shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by divers particulars evince plainly that this Ministery of Confirmation was not temporary and relative only to the Acts of the Apostles but was to descend to the Church for ever This indeed is done already in the preceding Section in which it is clearly manifested that Christ himself made the Baptism of the Spirit to be necessary to the Church He declar'd the fruits of this Baptism and did particularly relate it to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church at and after that glorious Pentecost He sanctified it and commended it by his Example just as in order to Baptism he sanctified the Floud Jordan and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin viz. by his great Example and fulfilling this righteousness also This Doctrine the Apostles first found in their own persons and Experience and practised to all their Converts after Baptism by a solemn and external Rite and all this passed into an Evangelical Doctrine the whole mystery being signified by the external Rite in the words of the Apostle as before it was by Christ expressing
Prophesying or Preaching which yet all Christians know does abide with the Church for ever 5. To every ordinary and perpetual Ministery at first there were extraordinary effects and miraculous consignations We find great parts of Nations converted at one Sermon Three thousand Converts came in at once Preaching of S. Peter and five thousand at another Sermon and persons were miraculously cured by the Prayer of the Bishop in his visitation of a sick Christian and Devils cast out in the conversion of a sinner and Blindness cur'd at the Baptism of S. Paul and Aeneas was healed of a Palsie at the same time he was cur'd of his Infidelity and Eutychus was restor'd to life at the Preaching of S. Paul And yet that now we see no such Extraordinaries it follows not that the Visitation of the sick and Preaching Sermons and Absolving Penitents are not ordinary and perpetual ministrations and therefore to fansy that invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands is to cease when the extraordinary and temporary contingencies of it are gone is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance against so Sacred an Institution relying upon so many Scriptures 6. With this Objection some vain persons would have troubled the Church in S. Austin's time but he considered it with much indignation writing against the Donatists His words are these At the first times the Holy Spirit fell upon the Believers and they spake with Tongues which they had not learned according as the Spirit gave them utterance They were Signs fitted for the season for so the Holy Ghost ought to have signified in all Tongues because the Gospel of God was to run through all the Nations and Languages of the World so it was signified and so it pass'd through But is it therefore expected that they upon whom there is Imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost that they should speak with Tongues Or when we lay hands on Infants does every one of you attend to hear them speak with Tongues And when he sees that they do not speak with Tongues is any of you of so perverse a heart as to say They have not received the Holy Ghost for if they had received him they would speak with Tongues as it was done at first But if by these Miracles there is not now given any testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit how doth any one know that he hath received the Holy Ghost Interroget cor suum Si diligit fratrem manet Spiritus Dei in illo It is true the Gift of Tongues doth not remain but all the greater Gifts of the Holy Spirit remain with the Church for ever Sanctification and Power Fortitude and Hope Faith and Love Let every man search his Heart and see if he belongs to God whether the love of God be not spread in his heart by the Spirit of God Let him see if he be not patient in Troubles comforted in his Afflictions bold to confess the Faith of Christ crucified zealous of Good works These are the miracles of Grace and the mighty powers of the Spirit according to that saying of Christ These signs shall follow them that believe In my Name shall they cast out Devils they shall speak with new Tongues they shall tread on Serpents they shall drink poison and it shall not hurt them and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover That which we call the Miraculous part is the less power but to cast out the Devil of Lust to throw down the Pride of Lucifer to tread on the great Dragon and to triumph over our Spiritual enemies to cure a diseased Soul to be unharmed by the poison of Temptation of evil Examples and evil Company these are the true signs that shall follow them that truly and rightly believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus this is to live in the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit this is more than to receive the Spirit to a power of Miracles and supernatural products in a natural matter For this is from a supernatural principle to receive supernatural aids to a supernatural end in the Diviner spirit of a man and this being more miraculous than the other it ought not to be pretended that the discontinuance of extraordinary Miracles should cause the discontinuance of an ordinary Ministration and this is that which I was to prove 7. To which it is not amiss to add this Observation that Simon Magus offered to buy this power of the Apostles that he also by laying on of hands might thus minister the Spirit Now he began this sin in the Christian Church and it is too frequent at this day but if all this power be gone then nothing of that sin can remain if the subject matter be removed then the appendant crime cannot abide and there can be no Simony so much as by participation and whatever is or can be done in this kind is no more of this Crime than Drunkenness is of Adultery it relates to it or may be introductive of it or be something like it But certainly since the Church is not so happy as to be intirely free from the Crime of Simony it will be hard to say that the power the buying of which was the principle of this sin and therefore the Rule of all the rest should be removed and the house stand without a foundation the relative without the correspondent the accessary without the principal and the accident without the subject This is impossible and therefore it remains that still there abides in the Church this power that by Imposition of the Hands of fit persons the Holy Ghost is ministred But this will be further cleared in the next Section SECT III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit or Confirmation was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church NExt to the plain words of Scripture the traditive Interpretation and Practice of the Church of God is the best Argument in the World for Rituals and Mystical ministrations for the Tradition is universal and all the way acknowledged to be derived from Scripture And although in Rituals the Tradition it self if it be universal and primitive as this is were alone sufficient and is so esteemed in the Baptism of Infants in the Priests consecrating the Holy Eucharist in publick Liturgies in Absolution of Penitents the Lord's Day Communicating of Women and the like yet this Rite of Confirmation being all that and evidently derived from the practice Apostolical and so often recorded in the New Testament both in the Ritual and Mysterious part both in the Ceremony and Spiritual effect is a point of as great Certainty as it is of Usefulness and holy designation Theophilus Antiochenus lived not long after the death of S. John and he derives the name of Christian which was first given to the Disciples in his City from this Chrism or
this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters Innocentius III a great Canonist and of great authority gives a full evidence in this particular Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur quia per eam Spirituâ— Sanctus per augmentum datur robur Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere idest Episcopus conferre By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest that is the Bishop And therefore to the Question What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had the same Innocentius answers It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in operâ— veritas autem non subeat in essectu for it iâ— a mere shadow without truth or real effect when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion from whence Thomas of Walden says that Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times I have already I hope sufficiently declared what it was afterwards when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate per Pontificem verò in Fronte ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum in secunda quoque ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis scientiae virtutis venire in hominem declaretur Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret illustraret nunc in hominem ad hoc venit ut Signaculum fidei quod in fronte suscepit faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum suâ gratiâ confortatum intrepidè audacter coram Regibus Potestatibus hujus seculi portare ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head in Confirmation on the Forehead by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit with his seven-fold Gifts with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony but the Rites were ever distinguished and did not only signifie and declare but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd and gave in what circumstances they would chuse and new propositions entred and customs chang'd and deputations were made and the Bishops in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded it may be more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation it came to pass that new opinions were enterâ—ain'd and the Regulars the Friers and the Jesuits who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power from which they would fain have been wholly exempted publickly taught in England especially that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation For as Tertullian complain'd in his time Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi eoâ— necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines These men to serve ends destroyed the Article and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris and the Censure well defended by Hallier one of the Doctors of the Sorbon whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things But for the main It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis impositio manuum Episcoporum which our English word well expresses and perfectly retains the use we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children I shall no farther insist upon it only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law of a Minister ordinary and extraordinary all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery and disparks the inclosures and lays all in common and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God and relies upon a false Principle for in true Divinity and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment there can be none but the ordinary Minister I do not say that God is tied to this way he cannot be tied but by himself and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man But this I say That though God can make Ministers extraordinary yet Man cannot and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher which is the case of Confirmation by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church by which Bishops only the Successors of the Apostles were alone the Ministers of Confirmation and therefore if any man else usurp it let them answer it they do hurt indeed to themselves but no benefit to others to whom
they minister shadows instead of substances SECT V. The whole Procedure or Ritual of Confirmation is by Prayer and Imposition of Hands THE Heart and the Eye are lift up to God to bring Blessings from him and so is the Hand too but this also falls upon the People and rests there to apply the descending Blessing to the proper and prepared suscipient God governed the People of Israel by the hand of Moses and Aaron calidae fecêre silentia turbae Majestate manûs And both under Moses and under Christ when-ever the President of Religion did bless the People he lifted up his Hand over the Congregation and when he blessed a single Person he laid his Hand upon him This was the Rite used by Jacob and the Patriarchs by Kings and Prophets by all the eminently Religious in the Synagogue and by Christ himself when he blessed the Children which were brought to him and by the Apostles when they blessed and confirmed the baptized Converts and whom else can the Church follow The Apostles did so to the Christians of Samaria to them of Ephesus and S. Paul describes this whole mystery by the Ritual part of it calling it the Foundation of the Imposition of hands It is the solemnity of Blessing and the solemnity and application of Paternal prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Clement of Alexandria Upon whom shall he lay his hands whom shall he bless Quidenim aliud est Impositio manuum nisi Oratio super hominem said S. Austin The Bishop's laying his hands on the People what is it but the solemnity of Prayer for them that is a prayer made by those Sacred persons who by Christ are appointed to pray for them and to bless in his Name and so indeed are all the Ministeries of the Church Baptism Consecration of the B. Eucharist Absolution Ordination Visitation of the Sick they are all in genere Orationis they are nothing but solemn and appointed Prayer by an intrusted and a gracious Person specificated by a proper order to the end of the blessing then designed And therefore when S. James commanded that the sick Persons should send for the Elders of the Church he adds and let them pray over them that is lay their hands on the sick and pray for them that is praying over them It is adumbratio dextrae as Tertullian calls it the right hand of him that ministers over-shadows the person for whom the solemn Prayer is to be made This is the Office of the Rulers of the Church for they in the Divine Eutaxy are made your Superiors they are indeed your servants for Jesus sake but they are over you in the Lord and therefore are from the Lord appointed to bless the People for without contradiction saith the Apostle the less is blessed of the greater that is God hath appointed the Superiors in Religion to be the great Ministers of Prayer he hath made them the gracious Persons them he will hear those he hath commanded to convey your needs to God and God's blessings to you and to ask a blessing is to desire them to pray for you them I say whom God most respecteth for their piety and zeal that way or else regardeth for that their place and calling bindeth them above others to do this duty such as are Natural and Spiritual Fathers It is easie for prophane persons to deride these things as they do all Religion which is not conveyed to them by sense or natural demonstrations but the Oeconomy of the Spirit and the things of God are spiritually discerned The Spirit bloweth where it listeth and no man knows whence it comes and whither it goes and the Operations are discerned by Faith and received by Love and by Obedience Date mihi Christianum intelligit quod dico None but true Christians understand and feel these things But of this we are sure that in all the times of Mose's Law while the Synagogue was standing and in all the days of Christianity so long as men loved Religion and walked in the Spirit and minded the affairs of their Souls to have the Prayers and the Blessing of the Fathers of the Synagogue and the Fathers of the Church was esteemed no small part of their Religion and so they went to Heaven But that which I intend to say is this That Prayer and Imposition of Hands was the whole procedure in the Christian Rites and because this Ministery was most signally performed by this Ceremony and was also by S. Paul called and noted by the name of the Ceremony Imposition of hands this name was retained in the Christian Church and this manner of ministring Confirmation was all that was in the commandment or institution But because in Confirmation we receive the Unction from above that is then we are most signally made Kings and Priests unto God to offer up spiritual sacrifices and to enable us to seek the Kingdom of God and the Righteousness of it and that the giving of the Holy Spirit is in Scripture called the Vnction from above the Church of God in early Ages made use of this Allegory and passed it into an External Ceremony and Representation of the Mystery to signifie the Inward Grace Post inscripta oleo frontis signacula per quae Vnguentum Regale datum est Chrisma perenne We are consigned on the Fore-head with Oil and a Royal Unction and an Eternal Chrism is given to us so Prudentius gives testimony of the ministery of Confirmation in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Cyril Preserve this Unction pure and spotless for it teaches you all things as you have heard the blessed S. John speaking and philosophizing many things of this holy Chrism Upon this account the H. Fathers used to bless and consecrate Oil and Balsam that by an External Signature they might signifie the Inward Unction effected in Confirmation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Chrism is not simple or common when it is blessed but the gift of Christ and the presence of his H. Spirit as it were effecting the Divinity it self the body is indeed anointed with visible Ointment but is also sanctified by the holy and quickning Spirit so S. Cyril I find in him and in some late Synods other pretty significations and allusions made by this Ceremony of Chrisms Nos autem pro igne visibili qui die Pentecostes super Apostolos apparuit oleum sanctum materiam nempe ignis ex Apostolorum traditione ad confirmandum adhibemus This using of Oil was instead of the Baptism with Fire which Christ baptized his Apostles with in Pentecost and Oil being the most proper matter of Fire is therefore used in Confirmation That this was the ancient Ceremony is without doubt and that the Church had power to do so hath no question and I add it was not unreasonable for if ever the Scripture expresses the mysteriousness of a Grace conferred by an Exterior ministery as this is by
Imposition of hands and represents it besides in the Expression and Analogy of any sensible thing that Expression drawn into a Ceremony will not improperly signifie the Grace since the Holy Ghost did chuse that for his own expression and representment In Baptism we are said to be buried with Christ. The Church does according to the Analogy of that expression when she immerges the Catechumen in the Font for then she represents the same thing which the Holy Ghost would have to be represented in that Sacrament the Church did but the same thing when she used Chrism in this ministration This I speak in justification of that ancient practice but because there was no command for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Basil concerning Chrism there is no written word that is of the Ceremony there is not he said it not of the whole Rite of Confirmation therefore though to this we are all bound yet as to the Anointing the Church is at liberty and hath with sufficient authority omitted it in our ministrations In the Liturgy of King Edward the VI. the Bishops used the sign of the Cross upon the Foreheads of them that were to be Confirmed I do not find it since forbidden or revoked by any expression or intimation saving only that it is omitted in our later Offices and therefore it may seem to be permitted to the discretion of the Bishops but yet not to be used unless where it may be for Edification and where it may be by the consent of the Church at least by interpretation concerning which I have nothing else to interpose but that neither this nor any thing else which is not of the nature and institution of the Rite ought to be done by private Authority nor ever at all but according to the Apostle's Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever is decent and whatsoever is according to Order that is to be done and nothing else for Prayer and Imposition of hands for the invocating and giving the Holy Spirit is all that is in the foundation and institution SECT VI. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy Reception and due Ministery of Confirmation IT is of it self enough when it is fully understood what is said in the Acts of the Apostles at the first ministration of this Rite They received the Holy Ghost that is according to the expression of our Blessed Saviour himself to the Apostles when he commanded them in Jerusalem to expect the verification of his glorious promise they were endued with vertue from on high that is with strength to perform their duty which although it is not to be understood exclusively to the other Rites and Ministeries of the Church of Divine appointment yet it is properly and most signally true and as it were in some sence appropriate to this For as Aquinas well discourses the Grace of Christ is not tied to the Sacraments but even this Spiritual strength and vertue from on high can be had without Confirmation as without Baptism Remission of sins may be had and yet we believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins and one Confirmation for the obtaining this vertue from on high this strength of the Spirit But it is so appropriate to it by promise and peculiarity of ministration that as without the Desire of Baptism our sins are not pardon'd so without at least the Desire of Confirmation we cannot receive this vertue from on high which is appointed to descend in the ministery of the Spirit It is true the ministery of the Holy Eucharist is greatly effective to this purpose and therefore in the ages of Martyrs the Bishops were careful to give the people the Holy Communion frequently Vt quos tutos esse contra adversarium volebant munimento Dominicae Saturitatis amarent as S. Cyprian with his Collegues wrote to Cornelius that those whom they would have to be safe against the contentions of their adversaries they should arm them with the guards and defences of the Lord's Fulness But it is to be remembred that the Lord's Supper is for the more perfect Christians and it is for the increase of the Graces receiv'd formerly and therefore it is for Remission of sins and yet is no prejudice to the necessity of Baptism whose proper work is Remission of sins and therefore neither does it makes Confirmation unnecessary for it renews the work of both the precedent Rites and repairs the breaches and adds new Energy and proceeds in the same dispensations and is renewed often whereas the others are but once Excellent therefore are the words of John Gerson the Famous Chancellor of Paris to this purpose It may be said that in one way of speaking Confirmation is necessary and in another it is not Confirmation is not necessary as Baptism and Repentance for without these Salvation cannot be had This Necessity is Absolute but there is a Conditional Necessity Thus if a man would not become weak it is necessary that he eat his meat well And so Confirmation is necessary that the Spiritual life and the health gotten in Baptism may be preserv'd in strength against our spiritual enemies For this is given for strength Hence is that saying of Hugo de S. Victore What does it profit that thou art raised up by Baptism if thou art not able to stand by Confirmation Not that Baptism is not of value unto Salvation without Confirmation but because he who is not Confirmed will easily fall and too readily perish The Spirit of God comes which way he pleases but we are tied to use his own Oeconomy and expect the blessings appointed by his own Ministeries And because to Prayer is promised we shall receive what-ever we ask we may as well omit the receiving the Holy Eucharist pretending that Prayer alone will procure the blessings expected in the other as well I say as omit Confirmation because we hope to be strengthned and receive vertue from on high by the use of the Supper of the Lord. Let us use all the Ministeries of Grace in their season for we know not which shall prosper this or that or whether they shall be both alike good this only we know that the Ministeries which God appoints are the proper seasons and opportunities of Grace This power from on high which is the proper blessing of Confirmation was expressed not only in speaking with Tongues and doing Miracles for much of this they had before they received the Holy Ghost but it was effected in Spiritual and internal strengths they were not only enabled for the service of the Church but were indued with courage and wisdom and Christian fortitude and boldness to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and unity of heart and mind singleness of heart and joy in God when it was for the edification of the Church Miracles were done in Confirmations and S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias tells that S. Malchus Bishop of Lismore in Ireland confirmed a
they cannot charge it with any evil 2. Because for all the time of King Edward the Sixth and till the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth your people came to our Churches and prayed with us till the Bull of Pius Quintus came out upon temporal regards and made a Schism by forbidding the Queen's Subjects to pray as by Law was here appointed though the Prayers were good and holy as themselves did believe That Bull enjoyned Recusancy and made that which was an act of Rebellion and Disobedience and Schism to be the character of your Roman Catholicks And after this what can be supposed wanting in order to Salvation We have the Word of God the Faith of the Apostles the Creeds of the Primitive Church the Articles of the four first General Councils a holy Liturgy excellent Prayers perfect Sacraments Faith and Repentance the Ten Commandments and the Sermons of Christ and all the Precepts counsels of the Gospel We teach the necessity of good works and require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life We live in obedience to God and are ready to die for him and do so when he requires us so to do We speak honourably of his most holy Name we worship him at the mention of his Name we confess his Attributes we love his Servants we pray for all men we love all Christians even our most erring Brethren We confess our sins to God and to our Brethren whom we have offended and to God's Ministers in cases of Scandal or of a troubled Conscience We communicate often we are enjoyned to receive the holy Sacrament thrice every year at least Our Priests absolve the penitent our Bishops ordain Priests and Confirm baptized persons and bless their people and intercede for them and what could here be wanting to Salvation what necessity forced you from us I dare not suspect it was a Temporal regard that drew you away but I am sure it could be no Spiritual But now that I have told you and made you to consider from whence you went give me leave to represent to you and tell you whither you are gone that you may understand the nature and conditions of your change For do not think your self safe because they tell you that you are come to the Church You are indeed gone from one Church to another from a better to a worse as will appear in the induction the particulars of which before I reckon give me leave to give you this advice If you mean in this affair to understand what you do it were better you enquired what your Religion is than what your Church is For that which is a true Religion to day will be so to morrow and for ever but that which is a holy Church to day may be heretical at the next change or may betray her trust or obtrude new Articles in contradiction to the old or by new interpretations may elude ancient Truths or may change your Creed or may pretend to be the Spouse of Christ when she is idolatrous that is adulterous to God Your Religion is that which you must and therefore may competently understand You must live in it and grow in it and govern all the actions of your life by it and in all questions concerning the Church you are to chuse your Church by the Religion and therefore this ought first and last to be enquired after Whether the Roman Church be the Catholick Church must depend upon so many uncertain enquiries is offered to be proved by so long so tedious a method hath in it so many intrigues and Labyrinths of Question and is like a long line so impossible to be perfectly streight and to have no declination in it when it is held by such a hand as yours that unless it be by material enquiries into the Articles of the Religion you can never hope to have just grounds of confidence In the mean time you can consider this if the Roman Church were the Catholick that is so as to exclude all that are not of her communion then the Greek Churches had as good turn Turks as remain damned Christians and all that are in the communion of all the other Patriarchal Churches in Christendom must also perish like Heathens which thing before any man can believe he must have put off all reason and all modesty and all charity And who can with any probability think that the Communion of Saints in the Creed is nothing but the Communion of Roman Subjects and the Article of the Catholick Church was made up to dispark the inclosures of Jerusalem but to turn them into the pale of Rome and the Church is as limited as ever it was save only that the Synagogue is translated to Rome which I think you will easily believe was a Proposition the Apostles understood not But though it be hard to trust to it it is also so hard to prove it that you shall never be able to understand the measures of that question and therefore your Salvation can never depend upon it For no good or wise person can believe that God hath tied our Salvation to impossible measures or bound us to an Article that is not by us cognoscible or intends to have us conducted by that which we cannot understand And when you shall know that Learned men even of the Roman party are not agreed concerning the Catholick Church that is infallibly to guide you Some saying that it is the Virtual Church that is the Pope Some that it is the Representative Church that is a Council Some that it is the Pope and the Council the Virtual Church and the Representative Church together Some that neither of these nor both together are infallible but only the essential Church or the diffusive Church is the Catholick from whom we must at no hand dissent you will quickly find your self in a wood and uncertain whether you have more than a word in exchange for your Soul when you are told you are in the Catholick Church But I will tell you what you may understand and see and feel something that your self can tell whether I say true or no concerning it You are now gone to a Church that protects it self by arts of subtilty and arms by violence and persecuting all that are not of their minds to a Church in which your are to be a Subject of the King so long as it pleases the Pope In which you may be absolved from your Vows made to God your Oaths to the King your Promises to Men your duty to your Parents in some cases A Church in which men pray to God and to Saints in the same Form of words in which they pray to God as you may see in the Offices of Saints and particularly of our Lady a Church in which men are taught by most of the principal Leaders to worship Images with the same worship with which they worship God and Christ or him or her whose Image it is and in which they usually picture
at Trent then we also have a question to ask and that is Where was your Religion before Trent The Council of Trent determined That the Souls departed before the day of Judgment enjoy the Beatifical Vision It is certain this Article could not be shewn in the Confession of any of the ancient Churches for most of the Fathers were of another opinion But that which is the greatest offence of Christendom is not only that these doctrines which we say are false were yet affirmed but that those things which the Church of God did always reject or held as Uncertain should be made Articles of Faith and so become parts of your Religion and of these it is that I again ask the question which none of your side shall ever be able to answer for you Where was your Religion before Trent I could instance in many particulars but I shall name one to you which because the thing of it self is of no great consequence it will appear the more unreasonable and intolerable that your Church should adopt it into the things of necessary belief especially since it was only a matter of fact and they took the false part too For in the 21. Sess. Chap. 4. it is affirmed That although the holy Fathers did give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants yet they did it without any necessity of salvation that is they did not believe it necessary to their salvation Which is notoriously false and the contrary is marked out with the black-lead of every man almost that reads their Works and yet your Council says this is sine controversiâ credendum to be believed without all controversie and all Christians forbidden to believe or teach otherwise So that here it is made an Article of Faith amongst you that a man shall neither believe his reason nor his eyes and who can shew any Confession of Faith in which all the Trent-doctrine was professed and enjoyned under pain of damnation And before the Council of Constance the doctrine touching the Popes power was so new so decried that as Gerson says he hardly should have escaped the note of Heresie that would have said so much as was there defined So that in that Article which now makes a great part of your belief where was your Religion before the Council of Constance And it is notorious that your Council of Constance determined the doctrine of the Half-communion with a Non obstante to Christ's institution that is with a defiance to it or a noted observed neglect of it and with a profession it was otherwise in the Primitive Church Where then was your Religion before John Hus and Hierom of Prague's time against whom that Council was convened But by this instance it appears most certainly that your Church cannot shew her Confessions immediately after Christ and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther it were not half so much For since you receded from Christ's Doctrine we might well recede from yours and it matters not who or how many or how long they professed your doctrine if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it So that if these Articles constitute your Church your Church was invisible at the first and if ours was invisible afterwards it matters not For yours was invisible in the days of light and ours was invisible in the days of darkness For our Church was always visible in the reflections of Scripture and he that had his eyes of Faith and Reason might easily have seen these Truths all the way which constitute our Church But I add yet farther that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was in the same place and in the same persons For divers of the Errors which have been amongst us reformed were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms and Indulgences were indeed a practice but no Article of Faith before your men made it so and that very lately and so were many other things besides So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative even as much as between old Errors and new Articles For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the Oar yet the Councils of Constance and Basil and Trent especially were the Forges and the Mint Lastly If your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters the question would quickly have been answered or our Articles would have been so confessed so owned and so publick that the question could never have been asked But in despite of all opposition there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis and in Bishop Morton's Appeal But with your next objection you are better pleased and your men make most noise with it For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church but your men deny it to us and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe and there is no question concerning you but of us there is great question for none but our selves say that we can be saved I answer 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church is it ever the truer because we say it If it be not it can add no confidence to you for the Proposition gets no strength by our affirmative But if it be then our authority is good or else our reason and if either be then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason because we have greater concernments and therefore greater considerations 2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so little that we dare not venture our selves on your side The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a River in his journey to Daventry bad his man try the ford telling him he hoped he should not be drowned for though he was afraid the River was too deep yet he thought his Horse would carry him out or at least the Boats would fetch him off Such a confidence we may have of you but you will find that but little warranty if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture 3. It would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own faith but the greatness of our charity yet we that charitably
betray it yet the same severity you 'l find among us For though we will not tell a lie to help a sinner and say that is necessary which is only appointed to make men do themselves good yet we advise and commend it and do all the work of Souls to all those people that will be saved by all means to devout persons that make Religion the business of their lives and they that do not so in the Churches of the Roman Communion as they find but little advantage by periodical confessions so they feel but little awfulness and severity by the injunction You must confess to God all your secret actions you must advise with a holy man in all the affairs of your Soul you will be but an ill friend to your self if you conceal from him the state of your spiritual affairs We desire not to hear the circumstance of every sin but when matter of justice is concerned or the nature of the sin is changed that is when it ought to be made a Question and you will find that though the Church of England gives you much liberty from the bondage of innumerable Ceremonies and humane devices yet in the matter of holiness you will be tied to very great service but such a service as is perfect freedom that is the service of God and the love of the holy Jesus and a very strict religious life For we do not promise Heaven but upon the same terms it is promised us that is Repentance towards God and Faith in our Lord Jesus and as in Faith we make no more to be necessary than what is made so in holy Scripture so in the matter of Repentance we give you no easie devices and suffer no lessening definitions of it but oblige you to that strictness which is the condition of being saved and so expressed to be by the infallible Word of God but such as in the Church of Rome they do not so much stand upon Madam I am weary of my Journey and although I did purpose to have spoken many things more yet I desire that my not doing it may be laid upon the account of my weariness all that I shall add to the main business is this 4. Read the Scripture diligently and with an humble spirit and in it observe what is plain and believe and live accordingly Trouble not your self with what is difficult for in that your duty is not described 5. Pray frequently and effectually I had rather your prayers should be often than long It was well said of Petrarch Magno verborum fraeno uti decet cum superiore colloquentem When you speak to your Superior you ought to have a bridle upon your tongue much more when you speak to God I speak of what is decent in respect of our selves and our infinite distances from God But if love makes you speak speak on so shall your prayers be full of charity and devotion Nullus est amore superior ille te coget ad veniam qui me ad multiloquium Love makes God to be our friend and our approaches more united and acceptable and therefore you may say to God The same love which made me speak will also move thee to hear and pardon Love and devotion may enlarge your Litanies but nothing else can unless Authority does interpose 6. Be curious not to communicate but with the true Sons of the Church of England lest if you follow them that were amongst us but are gone out from us because they were not of us you be offended and tempted to impute their follies to the Church of England 7. Trouble your self with no controversies willingly but how you may best please God by a strict and severe conversation 8. If any Protestant live loosely remember that he dishonours an excellent Religion and that it may be no more laid upon the charge of our Church than the ill lives of most Christians may upon the whole Religion 9. Let no man or woman affright you with declamations and scaring words of Heretick and Damnation and Changeable for these words may be spoken against them that return to light as well as to those that go to darkness and that which men of all sides can say it can be of effect to no side upon its own strength or pretension THE END THREE LETTERS WRITTEN TO A GENTLEMAN That was tempted to the Communion of the ROMISH CHURCH The First Letter SIR YOU needed not to make the Preface of an excuse for writing so friendly and so necessary a Letter of Inquiry It was your kindness to my person which directed your addresses hither and your duty which ingag'd you to inquire some-where I do not doubt but you and very many other ingenious and conscientious persons do every day meet with the Tempters of the Roman Church who like the Pharisees compass Sea and Land to get a Proselyte at this I wonder not for as Demetrius said by this craft they get their living but I wonder that any ingenious person and such as I perceive you to be can be shaken by their weak assaults for their batteries are made up with impossible propositions and weak and violent prejudices respectively and when they talk of their own infallibility they prove it with false Mediums say we with fallible Mediums as themselves confess and when they argue us of an Uncertain Faith because we pretend to no infallibility they are themselves much more Uncertain because they build their pretence of infallibility upon that which not only can but will deceive them and since they can pretend no higher for their infallibility than prudential motives they break in pieces the staff upon which they lean and with which they strike us But Sir you are pleased to ask two Questions 1. Whether the Apostles of our Blessed Lord did not Orally deliver many things necessary to Salvation which were not committed to writing To which you add this assumentum in which because you desire to be answered I suppose you meant it for another Question viz. whether in those things which the Church of Rome retains and we take no notice of She be an Innovator or a conserver of Tradition and whether any thing which she so retains was or was not esteemed necessary The answer to the first part will conclude the second I therefore answer that whatsoever the Apostles did deliver as necessary to Salvation all that was written in the Scriptures and that to them who believe the Scriptures to be the word of God there needs no other Magazine of Divine truths but the Scripture And this the Fathers of the first and divers succeeding Ages do Unanimously affirm I will set down two or three so plain that either you must conclude them to be deceivers or that you will need no more but their testimony The words of S. Basil are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Every word and every thing ought to be made credible or believ'd by the testimony of the Divinely-inspired
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Confirmation 8. b. That the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews speaking of laying on of hands meaneth Confirmation and not Absolution nor Ordination 10 11. b. It was to continue down to all ages of the Church 13 14. b. Confirmation proved by the Testimony of the Fathers and the practice of the Primitive Church 15. b. Of the authority of S. Ambrose and Pope Sylvester alledged to prove that Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 ss 4. b. The difference between the Chrism of Confirmation and Baptism 20. b. Friers Regulars and Jesuites did in England challenge by Commission from the Pope a power of administring Confirmation though they were but Presbyters 21. b. The difference as to the use between Confirmation and Baptism 26. b. The blessings and graces usually conveyed by Episcopal Confirmation 25 26. b. The Ceremonies of it 24 25. b. Of the change made in us by it 28. b. Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism 29. b. The reason was because few were then baptized but adult persons ibid. The Apostles were not confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of our Lord's Supper 30. b. Whether Confirmation be administred more opportunely in infancy or in our riper years 29 30. b. Whether it can be administred more then once 32. b. On what account the Primitive Christians did confirm hereticks reduced and reconciled 32. b. Conscience That authority is most effectual which is seated there 160 § 49. The Church of Rome arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The niceties that every Ideot must trouble his Conscience with that worships Images in the way of the Romanists 548. How the religious man's Conscience is intangled by some modern errours that are allowed Pref. to Discourse of Repentance The contention between the flesh and conscience no sign of Regeneration 781 n. 31. How to know which prevails in this contention ibid. Consequent The manner of the Scripture is to include the consequent in the antecedent 679 n. 62. Consignare Of the sense of that word in the ancient Church 20. b. Contrition A description of Contrition 829 n. 28 29. The efficacy of it in repentance 670 n. 61. What it is 821 n. 5. The difference between it and Attrition 828. It must not be mistaken for a single act 829 n. 31. 1 Corinth Chap. 11. v. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 58 § 9. and 11.29 Eateth and drinketh unworthily explained 218 § 8. and 898. and 6.12 expl 619 n. 23. and 10.23 ibid. and 2.14 expl 723 n. 53. and 785 n. 44. and 11.27 expl 814 n. 59. 2 Corinth Chap. 15.21 expl 712 n. 15. and 12.21 expl 803 n. 12. and 1.21 22. Now he which confirmeth us and hath anointed and sealed expl 28. b. Corporal Austerities Or penances 858 n. 111. They are not simply necessary ibid. Corporal Afflictions are not of repentance 846 n. 75. How they are to be used 846 847 n. 76 77. The Primitive Christians did not believe them simply necessary 847 n. 78 79. Covenant Reasons why with a Covenant of works God began this intercourse with man 575. The opposition between the new and old Covenant is not in respect of faith and works 588 n. 7. Councils Presbyters had not the power of voting in them 136 § 41. That of Basil was the first in which Presbyters in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. Presbyters as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council Act. 15. p. 137 § 41. The people had de facto no vote in that Council ibid. The sixth Canon of the Council of Sevil objected and explained 147 § 44. Aërius was never condemned by any general Council 150 § 48. In the first council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick that believes right but separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent decreed a Proposition in matter of fact that was past 290. c. 1. § 2. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to God himself 267 § 13. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. The authority of a general Council against publick prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal privileges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. Even among the Romanists the authority of general Councils is but precarious 391. Hard to tell which are General Councils 392 393. The last Lateran Council is at Rome esteemed a general Council but in France and Germany none at all 392. General Councils not infallible 392. Instances of General Councils that have been condemned by the succeeding 393. How to know which are General Councils 393. It cannot be known who have voices in Councils who not 394. The Laiety were sometime admitted to vote in Councils 394 395. What if two parties call each their Council 395. How shall the decision be in a Council if the Bishops be divided in their opinions 395. Who hath power to call a general Council 395. Of a general Council confirmed by the Pope 395. A general Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. The Divinity of the H. Ghost was not decreed in the Council of Nice 424. The questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. How many of the Orthodox did begin to comply with the Arians about the Council of Ariminum 441. The definitions of general Councils were not so binding in the Primitive Church 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds ibid. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in the behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. What passed in the Lateran Council concerning Transubstantiation 519. Neither Transubstantiation nor any thing else was in the Lateran Council decreed 519. The same Council that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion the duty of subjects 520. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. Of the testimony of the Eliberitane Council against Images 538. Of the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem mentioned Act. 15. p. 948 n. 3. Of Councils Ecclesiastical 948 § 6. per tot Concilium Sinuessanum a forged one 991 n. 9. Reasons why decrees of Councils in defining controversies lay no obligation 986 987 988 989 ad fin sect Saint Augustine teacheth that the decrees of general Councils are as much subject to amendment as the letters of private Bishops 991 n. 8. The Roman Council under
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15