of the Languages and of Historical truth to the text of the Scripture And many things more may be cleared by applying the light of reason void of partiality and prejudice to draw the truth so cleared into consequence No part of all this can be said to be held upon any decree of the Church Because no part of the evidence supposes the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation the constitution whereof inableth some persons to oblige the whole Because there are maters in question concerning our common Christianity and the sense of the Scriptures upon which the great mischief of diviâ—â—on is fallen out in the Church it is thought a plausible plea to say that the decree of the present Church supposing the foundation of the Church in that nature and the power given to every part in behalf of the whole of which no evidence can be made not supposing all that for truth which I have said obligeth all Christians to believe as much as the Scriptures supposing them to be the Word of God can do Which they that affirm do not consider that it must first be evident to all that are to be obliged Both that the Church is so founded and whoâ—e Act it is and how that Act must be done which must oblige it Seeing then that the Scriptures are admitted on all sides to be the Word of God let us see whether it be as evident as the Scriptures that the act of the Pope or of a General Council or both oblige the Church to believe the truth of that which they decree as much as the Scriptures I know there are texts of Scripture alleged First concerning the Apostles and Disciples Mat. X. 14 15 40. Luke IX 5. X. 10 11 16. where those that refuse them are in worse estate than Sodom and Gomorrha And Hee that heareth you heareth mee Hee that neglecteth you neglecteth mee Mat. XXVIII 19 20. Go make all Nations Disciples teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you and behold I am with you to the worlds end 1 Thess II. 13. Yee received the Gospel of us not as the word of man but as it is indeed the word of God Then concerning S. Peter as predecessor of all Popes Mat. XVI 18 19. Vpon this rock will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven Luke XXII 32. I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not and thou once converted strengthen thy brethren John XXI 15 16 17. Simon son of Jonas lovest thou mee Feed my lambs feed my sheep Again concerning the Church and Councils Mat. XVIII 17-20 If hee heare them not tell the Church If hee hear not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publican Verily I say unto you whatsoever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Again I say unto you If two of you agree on earth upon any thing to ask it it shall be done them from my Father in heaven For where two or three are assembled in my name there am I in the midst of them John XVI 13. The Spirit of truth shall lead you into all truth Acts XV. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us 1 Tim. III. 15. That thou mayest know now it behoveth to converse in the house of God which is the Churchof God the pillar and establishment of the truth You have further the exhortations of the Apostles 1 Thess V. 12 13. Now I beseech you brethren to know them which labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you And esteem them more than abundantly in love for their works sake Heb. XIII 7 17. Bee obedient and give way to your Rulers for they watch for your souls as those that must give account That they may do it joyfully and not groaning Which is not for your profit And afore Rememeer your Rulers which have spoken to you the Word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their Faith Those that spoke unto them the Word of God are the Apostles or their companions and deputies whom hee commandeth them to obey no otherwise than those who presently watched over them after their death In the Old Testament likewise Deut. XVII 5-12 Hee that obeyeth not the determination of the Court that was to sit before the Ark is adjudged to death Therefore Hag. II. 12. Thus saith the Lord the God of Hosts Ask the Priests concerning the Law Mal. II. 7. The Priests lips shall preserve knowledge and the Law shall they require at his mouth For hee is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts The answers of the Priests resolved into the decrees of the said Court therefore they are unquestionable And this Power established by the Law our Lord acknowledging the Law allowes Mat. XXIII 2. The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses chair whatsoever therefore they command you that do But according to their works do not This is that which is alleged out of the Scriptures for that Infallibility which is challenged for the Church If I have left any thing behinde it will prove as ineffectual as the rest In all which there are so many considerations appear why the sense of them should be limited on this side or extended beyond the body of the Church that it is evident they cannot serve for evidence to ground the Infallibility of it For is it not evident that the neglect of the Apostles in questioning their doctrine redounds upon our Lord who by sending them stamps on them the marks of his Fathers authority which hee is trusted with Not so the Church For who can say that God gives any testimony to the lie which it telleth seeing Christianity is supposed the Infallibility thereof remaining questionable Is it not evident that God is with his Chu ch not as a Corporation but as the collection of many good Christians Supposing that those who have power to teach the Church by the constitution thereof teach lies and yet all are not carried away with their doctrine but believe Gods truth so farre as the necessity of their salvation requires If there were any contradiction in this supposition how could it be maintained in the Church of Rome that so it shall be when Antichrist comes as many do maintain Besides is it as evident as Christianity or the Scriptures that this promise is not conditional and to have effect supposing both the teaching and the following of that which our Lord lud taught and nothing else Surely if those that refuse the Gospel be in a worse state than those of Sodom and Gomorrha it followeth not yet that all that refuse to hear the Church without the Gospel are so For the truth of the Gospel
may have an issue which I pretend requires the Tradition of the Church and that the communion and Corporation of the Church as the onely meanes to maintain and propagate Tradition in it This our Independent Congregations cannot allow but must stand upon the other plea of those Hereticks that it came in beside if not against Gods appointment which the Donatists questioned not And therefore you shall finde S. Austine in the place aforenamed allege against them the Scriptures fore-telling the calling of all Nations which hee supposeth fulfilled in the Catholick Church then visible and therefore supposeth the communion to be ordained by God wherein the visibility thereof consisteth Otherwise it had been strange to tell the Donatists that they communicating with the Catholick Bishop of Rome communicated with all the Church that acknowledged him but the Donatists acknowledging the Donatist Bishop whom they had set up at Rome were therefore disowned by all the Church beside I do not deny that those of the Reformation are to give account of those things which the Donatists are charged with Nor do I imagine that their account cannot be sufficient because that of the Donatists was not But I say that the trial must be by the Scriptures which both parts acknowledge And I say further that the rest of the Reformation may and ought to admit the Unity of the Church in visible communion as the Donatists did because otherwise they cannot pretend that others are bound to bâ— what they are But our Independent Congregations cannot because if all were as they there could be no one Church obliged to that communion which makes it visible Now I must here caution that I intend not here to inferre that these Rulers succeeded the Apostles by a title of Divine Right as if it were Gods Law that this succession should alwaies continue For I demand for the present upon the exception of those of the Reformation that succession of Faith and doctrine is of more consequence than succession of persons And therefore that there can be no Law of God whereby the right which men hold by personal succession can or ought to hinder the Reformation of Faith and doctrine of Christianity if it may appear that the succession of persons hath not been effectual to preserve the succession of Faith That which I demand from the premises is this That no man in his right senses can imagine that all Christendome should agree in acknowledging those for lawfull Rulers of the Church in the times next the Apostles that had usurped their places contrary to the will of the Apostles and those Disciples which concurred to the work of the Apostles and those who derived their authority from either of both during the time of the Scriptures which I spoke of afore For those of the Reformation that make this exception by making it do acknowledge that there was such a visible succession of Pastors the correspondence of whom as here I argue maintained the unity of a visible Corporation in the Catholick Church And how many records of historical truth undeniable of all that would not be thought to renounce their common sense do testifie unto us visible acts of the Apostles giving power to them whom they left behinde them as those whom they gave it to have transmitted the like power to their successors But when it once appeares that they were owned by the consent of all Christians communicating with them in that quality which they held in their own Churches it can no more be imagined that they could attain those qualities by deceit or violence contrary to the will of their predecessors than it can be imagined that the common Christianity which wee all acknowledge could prevail over all by imposing upon their belief such motives to believe as never were seen because never done And therefore whatsoever change may have succeeded in those qualities from that which the Apostles instituted from the beginning or by abuse of the same in the Faith which they were trusted to propagate without adding or taking away which changes may be the subject of Reformation in the Church and the belief of it yet that this point is not of that nature That all lawfull authority in the Church is derived from that which was in the Apostles propagated by some visible act of theirs I will presume upon as proved by the premises CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given the Apostles and exercised by Excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatemeut of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks IN the last place the right of Excommunication consists in the power of remitting and retaining sins given by our Lord to his Church with the Keyes of it First to S. Peter alone our Lord saith Mat. XVI 19. I will give thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound in heaven whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed there But afterwards to the Body of his Disciples Mat. XVIII 17 18. If hee heare thee not tell the Church If he hear not the Church let him be unto thee as a Heathen or a Publicane Verily I say unto you Whatsoever yet binde as afore And to the XII breathing upon them John XX. 22 23. Receive yee the Holy Ghost Whose sins soever yee remit they are remitted and whose sins soever yee retaine they are retained By virtue of this Commission S. Peter saith to Simon Magus discovered a counterfeit Christian Acts VIII 20-24 Thy money perish with thee because thou hast thought to purchase the gift of God with money Thou hast neither part nor lot in this Word for thy heart is not right before God Repent thorefore of this thy malice and pray God that if possible this device of thine heart may be forgiven thee For I see thou art in the gall of bitternesse and the bond of unrighteousnesse And Simon answering said Pray you to the Lord for mee that nothing come upon mee of that which you have said Where having excluded him from the benefit of Christianity what hee is to expect hee leaves to the trial of future time But most manifestly S. Paul 1 Cor. V. commandeth them to deliver the incestuous person to Satan adding directions and reasons why they are to abstaine from the conversation of such Christians And pursueth this discourse with a charge of ending the sutes of their Christians within the Church 1 Cor. VI. which either signifies nothing or inforces the power of Excommunication to oblige the parties to stand to the sentence But the case of the incestuous person is made still more manifest by the reason of the sentence in joyned upon his repentance and the sorrow testified by the Church 2 Cor. II. 4-11 VII 8-11 In the Epistle to the Ebrewes VI. 4-8 X. 26-29 the Apostle declaring that they
who fall away in time of persecution are not to expect to be restored by Penance makes their Excommunication without release which therefore hee granteth may be released ù on repentance in the case of other sins To which purpose the Apostle 1 John V. 16 17. If a man see his brother sin a sin not unto death let him ask and hee shall give him life To such as sin not to death There is a sin to death I say not that yee pray for it All unrighteousnesse is sin but there is a sin not to death The meaning of these Scriptures I have argued and cleared more at large in my book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State pag. 17-40 by such reasons as have not been disputed by those that have questioned this power of the Church since the publishing of it But I will remember in this place that which I have also pleaded there pag. 13-16 that all this power is grounded upon the power of baptizing to forgivenesse of sins because of the evidence lately produced for the interrogatories of baptisme and the profession of Christianity which the Church did injoyn and all that were baptized undergo The promise of everlasting life in the world to come and the gift of the Holy Ghost inabling to performe so great an undertaking depending upon it according to such termes as the preaching of the Gospel importeth For if the Church be trusted by God first to induce men to believe Christianity then to instruct them wherein it consisteth is it not properly said to forgive the sins of them who upon that instruction undertake that profession with a good conscience and a heart unfained which God requireth of those that seek his promises And this is the ground of that which is there argued that the power of the Keyes is first seen in granting baptisme though not in ministering of it other acts of the same power depending upon this I will not here omit S. Cyprian Ep. LXXIII Manifestum autem est ubi per quos remissa peccatorum detur quae in baptismo scilicet datur Nam Petro primum Dominus super quem aedificaviâ— Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem dedit ut id solvereâ—ur in coelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hae cum dixisset inspiravit ait eis Accipite Sp. Sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi Si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Vnde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesia praepositis in Evangelicâ Lege ac dominicâ ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Foris autem nec ligari posse nec solvi ubi non sit qui ant ligare possit aut solvere Here it is plain that the Keyes of the Church and the power of remitting sins is exercised in baptizing according to S. Cyprian For thus hee writeth Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sins is given which forsooth is given in baptisme For first our Lord gave power to Peter upon whom hee built his Church and in whom hee settled and declared the original of Unity that it should be loosed in heaven which hee should loose on earth And after his resurrection hee speaketh also to his Apostles saying As my Father sent mee so I also send you And having said so hee breathed on them and said Receive the Holy Ghost Whose sins yee remit they shall be remitted whose sins yee retain they shall be retained Whence wee understand that it is not lawfull but for those that are set over the Church and founded upon the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sins But that without nothing can be either bound or loosed where there is no body that can either binde or loose This is then the ground of Excommunicating out of the Church The profession of Christianity is as necessary to obtain the promises of the Gospel at Gods hands as baptisme at the Churches The Church is trusted to allow or to refuse the profession tendered and accordingly to receive into the Church or exclude out of it And shall not hee that transgresses the profession of a Christian as visibly as hee made it which not onely Hereticks and Schismaticks but Adulterers Murtherers Apostates and the like do shall hee not forfeit the communion of the Church which hee attained by it Adde hereunto the consideration of that which I observed afore out of the Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 32. specifying what professions and trades of life there were which then were refused Baptisme unlesse they would professe to leave them as inconsistent with Christianity For example all that lived by the Stewes by the Stage by the Games and by the Races of the Pagans all Soothsayers Diviners and Fortune-tellers all that kept Concubines and refused to conforme themselves For let no man think this book the onely witnesse of this truth You have it in many other writers of the Church But especially in S. Austines book de Fide Operibus The subject whereof concernes those who having put away wives or husbands and married others were refused Baptisme for it This some plain Christians marvelled at and thought it reason that all should be baptized that would then taught their duty Which whoso regarded not might neverthelesse as they thought be saved so as through firâ— according to S. Paul And this is that which S. Austine disputes from the beginning to the XIV Chapter of that book that no man is to be baptized till hee undertake to live like a Christian marvailing afterwards cap. XVIII where those Christians had lived and spent their time who seeing every day before their eyes Whores Players Fencers Panders and the like refused Baptism found it strange that those adulteries which Christianity no lesse condemned never to inherit the kingdome of heaven should not be admitted into the Church without a promise to leave them for the future Certainly if the Church have power not to admit those who undertake not this then is the power of excluding those who undertake it and perform it not well grounded I shall not repeat here the reasons that I have elswhere to show that Penance and by consequence Excommunication is to be counted in the number of Traditions introduced with the force of Lawes into the Church by the Aposâ—les It is enough that they remaine intire I confesse they inferre an opinion thâ—â— is not so common That under the Apostles some sins of the deepest dye were not admitted to Penance nor to regain the Communion of the Church by the same But referred to the mercy of God whereof it was not alwaies thought fit that the Church should become surety or warrant And this brings in an interpretation of some very difficult texts of Scripture which is not received
because being to be held as a Heathen or a Publicane as being Excommunicate that is to say suppposing that to be true which Erastus would have to be salse by consequence and in effect it would become lawfull to sue him before Gentiles as being no longer a Christian Now when it followeth What forever yee binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven If wee take binding and loosing in a general sense to signifie that Power of giving Law so that hereeby the Church is inabled to give Law to the Church setting aside for the present who of the Church is to give Law who to receive it then I say that by virtue hereof the Power of Excommunicating is given to the Church Because it is nothing else but such a Right established by a Law of God And if God give his Church a Power to make Laws then hee gives it Power to make a Law that shall give force to all the rest by inacting that penalty that shall be requisite to restrain disobedience But if wee take the terms of binding and loosing as they are used among the Jews and by consequence when that which is unlawfull is done for declaring what is lawfull or unlawfull to be done to be discharged of it I say that admitting the difference between the Law and the Gospel which I have established the Power of Excommunicating will follow in the Church For supposing the Law not to tender remission of sin in order to life everlafting but to the remporal privileges of a Jew to be bound and to be loose will signifie no more than to be in or out of possession of those privileges uncapable or capable of the fame by doing or not doing what the Law requireth to be done for that purpose In the mean time this Power will argue a Common-wealth of Israel founded by God by virtue of which foundation the Power of those who are inabled by the Law to make this declaration takes effect to all purposes contained in the Law But. supposing the Gospel to tender remission of sins in order to life everlasting upon such terms as the Covenant of Grace importeth To be bound and to be loose will signifie freedom from sin or the captivity and fervitude of it And therefore the Power of declaring this estare and what is to be done for the attaining of it will necessarily inserre a Society of the Church founded upon the Power of making that declaration whereupon any man may be accepted for such Neither can it be imagined that any part any degree of the fame can be in any man but so farr and to effect as the Community of the Church shall have allowed It is not now unknown that divers of those that dispute Controversies for the Church of Rome do challenge the Power of making Law for the Church by virtue of this Power of binding and loosing given by our Lord to his Apostles And this opinion taketh place by the former interpretation of these words which being admitted that consequence cannot be refused But taking the Power of binding and loosing to be by virtue of the Keyes of Gods House which are the Keyes of David or the House of David the figure of the Church which is that signification which the language of the Scripture required when our Lord. having promised his Church adds Mat. XVI 19. Unto thee will I give the Keyes of the Kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven what soever thou loosest on earth shall be loosed in heaven The Power of binding and loosing in the Church will be correspondent to that which the Doctors of the Synagogue had of declaring this or that lawfull or unlawfull according to Moses Laws and a man tied to do this or that for maintaining his privilege by it And having said this I conceive I have done more than hee that distinguished these two meanings in our Lords words thought fit to do Hee distinguishing thus in the first book de Synedriis pag. 291 hath thought it enough to argue that neither the one nor the other will serve to ground the Power of Excommunicating in the Church Wherein what hee hath proved I referre my self to that which hath been said But in what sense the words of our Lord are to be understood according to his own opinion hee hath not declared how requisite foever it had been to do as I according to my opinion indeavor to do As for that little Objection that in Our Lords words it is not persons but things that are said to be bound and loose It is to be underflood that things are neither bound nor loose of themselves But that by the way of common understanding of men and speech it is attributed to them from the obligations that Iye upon men or persons by virtue of which obligations or freedom from them such things as they import are said to be bound or loose as lawfull or unlawfull for them to use who using them are either bound or free to such rights as the using or not using of them inferrs Though by consequence of this Power the Power of binding by Law or loosing that is of leaving free without tying by Law will naturally follow For as in Civil Government whatfoever person or persons are absolutely and without limitaiton indowed with the Soveraign Power must necessaraily be indowed with the Power of giving Law whereby they do but limit themselves what Law they will govern by which is before those Laws be declared their will and pleasure So if wee suppose in the Church a Power of admitting into and casting out of the Society of the Church wee must needs suppose a Power of giving Law to this Society because no Society at all can have Communion with it self but according to some Rules of exercising the said Communion which for the present are called Laws Now our Lord Christ having given his Disciples the Power of binding and Loosing by opening or shutting the doors of his Church that is by admitting into or excluding out of it hath thereby given them the Power of framing his Catholick Church Not that they are so properly said to binde those whom they shut out of the Church For when Christianity declareth mankinde to be under sin not to be freed of it but by submitting to Chrissianity the bond is contracted by him that finneth the shutting of the Church door upon him is but refusing him the cure whereof hee tenders himself uncapable But those whom they admit into the Church they are properly said to loose because though they cannot be loosed without their own act yet that act is not to be done without submitting to that authority which is intrusted to require it And this authority with those who acknowledge it by being admitted into the Church is that which consstuteth the Society and Corporation of the Church For admitting into the Church and allowing to continue
in the Church are both one and the fame act because they proceed both upon the fame of Christianity and preserving Unity in the Church Therefore at present I speak of both under one And if it be demanded whether the Power of binding and loosing do signifie generally binding by Law and not hindering Or particularly binding by shutting out of the Church for sin and loosing by admitting into the Church or retaining in the Church as free from sin I answer that expresly and formally the Power of binding and loosing signifies the later But the former by consequence For in the Common-wealth also the Power of giving Law is the same in generalls with the Power of Jurisdiction in particulars All parts of Soveraignty flowing naturally from that act whereby it becomes settled upon some person or persons Whose will is necessarily the Law whereby it is to be governed in as much as it is not limited by the original establishment thereof and acts done legally by vietue of the fame And so the Disciples of our Lord being prevented by nothing but our common Christianity which our Lord Christ having established left them the framing of his Church what they or those who claim under them shall do to obligue the Church obligeth by virtue of this Power of admitting into or excluding out of the Church And it is truly said that the Power of giving Law to the Church as the Church by virtue the Power of the Keyes belongs to the Church Provided that the effect of it belimited to those things which after the preaching of our Lord remained for his Apostles and Disciples as well as their Assistants and Succcessors to determine for the framing of Gods Catholick Church Before I leave this point I shall desire that the consequence of our Lords discourse may be considered For unlesse the command of resorting to the Church be understood as sending to binde or loose him to the Church that is supposed to be bound to sin or loose from it that which is inferred Whatfoever yee binde on earth will be utterly impertinent to that which went before Tell the Church But if wee suppose the speech to concerne Excommunication and Penance by consequence wee give a good reason why it followes Againe I say unto you that if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to be demanded it shall besall them from my Father in the heavens For supposing as known by the general and original practice of the Church whereof mention hath been made in the premises that the means of loosing from sin was the Prayers of the Church wee conclude that our Lord in the next place could not inferre any thing more proper and pertinent to that which hee had premised than this To wit how the Penitent is to be reslored to the favor of God and upon presumption thereof to the unity od the Church To wit by the Prayers of the Church For when hee sayes the Prayers of two Chrussians will be available with God hee must needs signifie that the Prayers of the Church will be much more available I know there are some Expositors Origen S. Austine and Theophylact of old and Grotius of late who when our Lord having said Let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publicane inferreth whatsoever yee binde on earth do understand that hereby particular Christians do binde and loose particular Christians when they show them the sin they do and they that do it will or will not make reparations And truly in as much as the knowledge of sin is a condition requisite to make the bond thereof take firm hold upon the conscience whosever procures this knowleg is truly said to binde as hee that shows the means of being loose is truly said to loose him that useth those means But if this were here meant there were no reason why our Lord should send him to the Church whom hee declares to be thus bound which this opinion supposeth Never dreaming of the Synagogue when our Lord faith Tell the Church For to say that a private Christian bindeth or looseth him whom the Church hath first declared to be in the wrong and not otherwife is as much as to say that a private Christian neither bindes not looses but the Church Not because hee cannot binde and loose before God in that sense which I spoke of afore but because hee cannot binde or loose any man as to the Church whom the Church had bound afore by declaring his sin For this opinion supposeth that when our Lord faith Whatsoever yee binde on earth hee speaketh of the sins of those that had refused to hear the Church afore Which being supposed it will remain manifest that when our Lord faith Let him to be thee as a Heathen or a Publicane immediately adding whatsoever yee binde on earth hee doth not onely teach what the wronged party but what every Christian is to do to wit what the acts of the Church oblige him to do as a Christian and one of the Church not as one that is wronged though the discourse rising upon this cafe if thy brother wrong thee end in the mention of him alone let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publicane because of the reason which follows grounded in the Power of binding and loosing which all Christians are to acknowledg These things being proved I will here repeat and insist upon that observation which heretofore I have advanced in another place that our Lord whom from the premises I suppose to treat here of Excommunication forbids that course to be held in the Church which then was used in the Synagogue namely that private persons should Excommunicate one another The effect of such Excommunications reaching no further than themselves or their inferiors and not obliging any stranger to take such a person for Excommunicate Which observation I oppose to an argument made from that which was used in the Primitive Church for Martyrs and Consessors in bonds for the Gospel to restore to the Communion of the Church those that were under Penance Tertul. de Pudic XXII Ad martyras I. Cypr. Epist X. XI XII XIII XIV XV. XVII XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXXVIII and John the Monk of the deserts of Egypt having Excommunicated the younger Theodosius hee was not satisfied with the Bishops absolution untill the Monk had done the fame Hence it is argued that Excommunication in the Church was the same that had been practised in the Synagogue because private Christians used that Power as private Jewes had done The ansswer is easie to him that will observe the reason of such Excommunication and obsoulution in the Church There were in the Church from the beginning besides those who had the chief authority of governing it divers ranks of persons of special esteem The rank of Widows honored with publick maintenance from the Church as wee understand by S. paul orders I Tim. V. 3-16 The rank of Virgins the Prerogative whereof wee may understand by Tertullians book
But he that thinketh that within the Church the power of the Keys goes no further then Preaching and clearing the scandall of notorious offences can give no reason why those that arâ— converted to believe Christianity by Preaching the Gospel should be bound by their own profession to oblige themselves to it and by that means to enâ—â—r the â—ociety of the Church For they are as well certified before baptism as after that without repentance and conversion from sinne there is no remission of sinne or hope of everlasting life which if a mâ—n be left to his own choice whether he will imbrace or not after that he is come into the Church why not afore Why came he into the Church Or why was there provision made that the Church should be a corporation the communion whereof all Christians should be be bound to hold â—nd imbrace Therefore our Lord when he declares the depositing of the same Keyes or power of loosing and binding with his Church which he he gave elsewhere to S. Peter and the rest of his Disciples Maâ— XVIII 15-20 commanding that he who will not hear the Church be to the Church as Publicâ—ns und Sinners were then to the Jews inferreth that Whatsoever they should bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever they should loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven And again that where two of you that is of the Church shall agree upon any thing to ask it it shall be done for you by my Eather in heaven Where reducing him that heareth not the Church into the State of a Publican or a sinner to the Jews being the binding of sinne as to the Church upon supposition that he is bound by it already as to God in order to the loosing of the same as to the Church upon supposition that it is first loosed as to God is something else besides preaching or clearing the scandal of notorious sinne And if our Lord by inferring immediately a generall promise of hearing the prayer of Christians intend to intimate that he would accept of the prayerâ— of the Church for the reconciling of those whose sinnes were bound as I observed afore then of necessity something more then showing the guilt of sinne by Preaching is referred to the Church in procuring the loosing of him that is bound from the debt of sinne not from the scandall of it And what is this but that which we see done by S. Paul and by the Church of Corinth in obedience to S. Pauls commands concerning him that had maried his Fatherâ— widow 1 Cor. V. 2 -2 Cor. II. 5-11 VII 8-11 For when S. Paul blames them that they did not all mourn that he who had done the act might be removed fâ—om among them Certainly he means that he who had done the act was to mourn so much more that he might be restored unto them again For so it came to passe and upon such terms he is restored If any man hath grieved it is not me that he hath grieved but in part that I may not charge you all Enough to such a one is this rebuke of many So that contrariwise ye ought rather to pardon and comfort such a one least he be swallowed up with abundance of sorrow The reason followes For I see that that leter of mine grievâ—d you though but for a time Now I am glad not that I grieved you but that you were grieved to repentance For ye were grieved according to God that ye might in nothing be punished as from us For the sorrow that is according to God worketh repentance to salvation not to be repentâ—th of But the sorrow of the world worketh death I demand whether the repentance which S. Pauls censure brought forth were the repentance of that Church or the repentance of both the person guilty and of the Church For without question if this were the crime and that he was born out in it by a faction in the Church the act whereof prevailing redounds to the account of the whole then S. Paul justly blames the Church because they had not cleared their hands of it by putting froâ— them the guilty person with demonstration of â—hat sorrow which might evidence their adherence to the Christianity which they had once professed And accordingly if the Church were grieved to repentance such as procureth salvation being according to God and that having so done they are injoyned to restore the guilty person Therefore that the guilty person had been reduced to so much more sorrow as the crime concerned him more and that this sorrow also was repentance to salvation according to God wrought by the censure inflicted upon him by S. Pauls Bpistle Whether then S. Paul require them to re-admit him least Satan should get advantage upon the Church by this breach whose conceits we are not ignorant of saith S. Paul and least the party should be swallowed up with excessive sorrow Or least the party by dispair of reconcilement with the Church should be reduced to renounce Christianity or a division be made in the Church from under the authority of S. Paul This he plainly declares that he pardons the man whom they pardon in the person of Christ that no such thing come to passe That is acting by Apostolical commission according to which that which any mans Apostle or Commissary did was as if himself did it So that either we suppose the repentance wrought by the censure to be sufficiently evidenced or that S. Pauls commission is not trustily discharged This is more then then preaching the Gospel or removing offence from before the Church It is removing the sinne by procuring repentance and thereupon assuring of pardon which seems not well assured when there is not competent means used much lesse the effect of the means visible in procuring repentance But if a Physitian onely prescribing and applying the means of curing a disease is said to cure it much more the Church not onely prescribing and applying the means of curing sinne by the exercise of repentance in prayer with fastinâ— and alms-deeds but also constraining the sick person effectually to use the cure prescribed by excluding him the communion of the Church so long as he refuses to use it Now when S. Paul commandeth to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the Spirâ—t may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. V. 5. proving the powing of Excommunication necessary to the constitution and being of the Church and that who so is excommunicate falls under the power of Satan as excluded Gods Church I alledged that those miraculous operations which God gave the Church undâ—r the Apoâ—tles to witnesse the truth of Christianity by the evidene of his presence in the same were seen upon those which were cast out of it And that in that regard this man is commanded to be delivered to Satan The destruction of the flesh then for which he is so delivered may signifie the
given generally to every Church For whereas our Lord elsewhere gives unto S. Peter this power of binding and loosing there is no doubt that in Peter bearing the form of the Church he gave it to all the Apostles Proceeding to allege S. Jerome and S. Augustine to the same purpose And upon the words of our Lord Feed my sheep Quod Petro dictum est omnibus Christi discipulis dictum est Hoc namque fuerunt caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus fuit pastores sunt omnes grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis tunc unanimi consensu pascebatur deincepâ— a successoribus eorum communi curâ pascitur That which is said to Peter is said to all Christs Disciples For what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles They are all shepherds but the flock appears to be but one which as then it was fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent so is it since fed by their successors with common care These Fathers then when they give this for the reason why our Lord gives Peter onely the Keys of the Church with the charge of feeding his flock that hee bore the person and form of the Church suppose the Church to be a body compacted of all Churches ruled by the same form of Government for the preserving of unity in the whole as the colledge of the Apostles consisteth of so many persons indowed all with one and the same power for whom one answers to signifie the unity of the whole Whereby it appeareth first negatively That the Church did uot understand any Soveraign Power to be committed to S. Peter by these words Then positively that our Lord speaking to him alone signifies there by the course which he hath established for preserving unity in the Church To wit that all Churches being governed in the same form the greater go before the lesse in ordering maters of common concernment S. Cypriane from whom all the rest have this doctrine hath cleared the intent of it when he thus writeth Epist ad Jubai LXXII Manifestum est autem ubi per quos remissa peccatorum datur quae in baptismo scilicet daâ—ur Nam Petro primum dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in caelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hoc cum dixisset inspiravit aâ—t illis Accipite spiritum sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ— praepositis in Evangelicâ lege dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sinnes is given when it is given in Baptism For our Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and in whom and from whom he instituted and declared the original of unity in it this power that it should be loosed in heaven whatsoever he had loosed on earth And after his resurrection also speaking to the Apostles he saith As my Father sent me so send I you And having said this he breathed on them saying If ye remit any mans sinnes they shall be remitted him if ye retain any mans they shall be retained Whence we understand that it is not lawful for any but those that are set over the Church and grounded in the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sinnes Because Peter received the Keys therefore all and every Church that is those that are over it and none else can give remission of sinnes by admitting to Baptism Shall we think the consequence extravagant having so clear a ground for it to wit the unity of the whole Church setled upon two ingredients the same form in all Churches but with dependence of the lesse upon the greater Churches If any man say all this is disputed by Cypriane to prove that Baptism given by Hereticks is void wherein he hath been disowned by the Church And that therefore the reasons are not well grounded from whence it is inferred The answer is easie because he inferrs upon them that which though true they do not inforce That a man cannot lawfully baptize is not so much as that if he do baptize his Baptism is void S. Cypriane took both for one and therefore his reason is good though it conclude not his purpose Why not void being unlawful I refer my self to what S. Augustine since hath disputed and the Church decreed and practised And here you have one ground for that distinction between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing one with another the Bishops and Priests of several Churches according to the original constitution of the Church I allow S. Hierome to say that wheresoever there is a Bishop whither at Rome or at Eugubium an obscure City near Rome he is of the same worth as of the same Priesthood Epist LXXXV For as to the inward Court of the conscience the office that is Ministred by the Bishop or Priest of a lesse Church is no lesse effectual then by one of a greater Church But as to the outward Court of the Church supposing all Churches governed in the same form but the Churches of lesse Cities subordinate to the Churches of greater Cities by the appointment of the Apostles the act of the lesse Church of the Bishop or a Priest of it cannot be of that consequence to the whole as the act of the greater Church And so though the Bishop or the Priest of a litle Church be of the same Order with the Bishop or Priest of a great Church yet the authority of the one extendeth without comparison further then the authority of the other can do And you may perhaps dispute whether this authority produce any such as Jurisdiction or not but whether there be ground hereupon to distinguish between the Order which is the same in both and the authority which it createth in which there is so great difference you cannot dispute Certainly the office of a Deacon in a greater Church may be of more consequence to the whole then many Bishops can bring to pass As the assistance of Athanasius in the office of a Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea was of more consequence to the obtaining of the decree of the Council then the votes of many Bishops there CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The businesse of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine AMongst the proceedings of the Church I will first alledge that of the Church of Rome
Christo Deo ad confederandam Disciplinam Homicidium Adulterium Fraudem Perfidiam caetera scelera prohibentes That hee had discovered nothing of their Sacraments or Mysteries besides obstinacy not to sacrifice but assemblies before day to sing praises to Christ and to God and to confederate their Discipline prohibiting Murther Adultery violation of Faith and other hainous deeds For the Eucharist is the Sacrament by which this discipline of Christianity is established But farr from being voluntary to those whom wee suppose Christians As for Origen in Celsum I. pag. 4. It is manifest that those private Contracts which Celsus calumniateth that the Christians made among themselves as against the State are acknowledged by him to have been those that were solemnized at their Feasts of Love That is at the Eucharist which from the beginning was a part of them whether then it were so or not And therefore the confederacy of Christians among themselves whom these Authors speak of was no otherwise voluntary than Christianity and therefore not voluntary supposing it The words of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which I do not admit to be well corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As being too obscure an expression for so clear a Writer as Origen to say that it was of force to do more mischief than the Bacchanalia which for that jealousie were put down as wee understand by Livy besides that hee must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not have used a general word for a particular And therefore I suppose hee alludes to the Verse of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolving by private confederacy that publick League and Bond wherein the peace of every Commonwealth consisteth Thus then saith Origen And hee seeks to calumniate the Love so called of Christians towards one another as subsisting at the peril of the Publick and able to do the mischief of disloyalty If this will not serve the turn but it be demanded that the Communion of the Church was then frequented by voluntary agreement let mee demand whether the authority of the Apostles in the Church subsisted upon no other title For as to the credit of them in delivering the Gospel believing what God had given them to evidence it with it is not possible for any man that pretends to be a Christian to question it If then it be said that they who were tyed to believe them concerning the truth of the Gospel were not bound to receive them as chief Governors of the Church let mee demand how it came to passe that those were received all over the Church whom it was believed that they had granted their authority to or what part soever of it There being no obligation to tye them to receive such afore others and the variety of judgment which all men are subject to being such as never to agree in the same reason where nothing obliges So likewise whereas it is manifest that the Church then both had and must needs have many Rules the general importance whereof was received by all though with particular differences according to times and places I demand how any such could come in force when neither the Jewes deserved that love that all should imbrace them for their sake nor the judgments of all Christians so different in all things could concurr in any thing which their Christianity imported not Especially I demand this concerning the indowment of the Church because it is evident that as Constantine first made good by the Empire all the acts of them that had given whatsoever was ravished away by the persecution of Diocletian then gave much more of his own So all Kingdoms and Commonwealths after the example of that Empire have proceeded to indow it with the first-fruits of their goods in Houses and Glebes and Tithes and Oblations I demand then what imposture could have been then so powerfull as to seduce all the Christian world in a mater so nearly concerning their interest had they not stood convict by the constant practice of Christendom before Constantine that it was no imposture more than the Christianity brought in by the same Apostles Lastly whereas it is acknowledged what strange severity of discipline the Primitive Church was under by the Rules of Penance which then were in force though I have showed in another place that they were yet stricter under the Apostles and that the severity of them necessarily abated as the zele of Christianity under them did abate I demand what common sense can allow that all Christians should agree to make themselves fools by submitting themselves to such Rules which nothing but their own consent could oblige them to imbrace For neither can it be said that they had them from the Jews nor had they been extant among them that the Christians would have received them for their sake CHAP. XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The difference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Secular Power in determining maters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to professe the contrary of that which hee believeth Every man is bound to professe that Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather than the State neither being infallible I Shall not now need to say much to those terms which the Leviathan holds beside that which hath been already said to evidence the Society of the whole Church and the foundation thereof by the Scriptures Hee that acknowledges in the Church a Power to judge of true repentance and accordingly to binde and to loose and that upon the same score and therefore to the same effect as it baptizes together with the Power of appointing publick persons in the Church and the Church in which hee acknowledges the Power to be the Body of Christians in each City by what Title doth hee suppose the Church to hold this Power or this Right the evidence whereof hee fetches from the Scriptures whereby hee proveth it For those Scriptures do not import by what Act it is established but onely that it was in force or use at the doing of those things which they relate Can it be imagined to be any thing else than the act of the Apostles declaring the will of God in that behalf If then by divine right that is by Gods appointment and ordinance imported by those Scriptures the Church that is the Body of Christians in each City stands indowed with those rights how shall the Church that is the Soveraign Power of each State stand indowed with the same rights by the same Title that is by Gods appointment evidenced by the same Scriptures How shall Gods Law that inableth the Body of the Church to binde and to
loose to nominate and elect publick persons in the Church but requireth the Apostles and those that hold under them to pronounce the sentence and to impose hands inable the Soveraign Power to do the same and yet require those that claim from the Apostles to execute If Philosophers have the privilege to justifie such contradictions as these then may this opinion passe for a truth In the mean time to men of common reason how reasonable it will sound that the Apostles being imployed by God to order these things in the Church and that for the maintenance of Christianity received should tye themselves to execute those acts which the Body of Christians in each City should determine to be for the maintenance of that Christianity which they knew nothing what belonged to but what they had learned from them the Apostles I am well content to referr my self to judgment But alwayes there remains or may remain a difference between the Bodies of Christians in several Cities and the Soveraign Powers over them So that the rights of both cannot be derived from one and the same Title Sad experience shows that Churches may continue where the Soveraign Powers are not Christians as they subsisted before they were Shall these Soveraign Powers give sentence of binding and loosing and appoint persons to be ordained and those that claim under the Apostles be bound to execute Shall the Great Turk have Power to officiate and minister the Sacraments of divine service in the Church because whatsoever a man may do by his minister hee may do in his own person much more as this opinion pag. 297. 298 299. expresly disputes that the Soveraign may do and that imployment or more publick consequence is the onely reason why hee doth not It is said indeed pag. 299. that hee that had Power to Teach before hee was a Christian being Baptized retains the same Power to teach Christianity And so every Soveraign being the Chief Master to teach all his Subjects whatsoever the peace of his State requires by being Baptized hee gets no new right but is directed how to use that which wee had afore But if the premises be true the assumption is ridiculous A Doctor of the Synagogue duely qualified is not a Doctor of the Church because the Church stands not upon the same terms with the Synagogue Doctors and Disciples being relatives terms of a relation grounded upon the Society of the Church or Synagogue The Soveraign Power teaches by Lawes to keep the Publick peace though that it should do no more than teach were ridiculous The Church teaches the way to heaven and for that reason the bond of Publick peace not the mater of it And therefore as no man by being Baptized getteth the right of teaching by Civil Laws So hee that hath the right of teaching by Civil Laws by being baptized getteth no right to teach Christianity The Law of Moses was given to one people which had covenanted with God to be ruled by it and upon that condition to be maintained in the Land of Promise So the Covenant of the Law and the obligation of that people to it was presupposed before God had declared whom hee would make Soveraign of that people after Moses But in as much as the determination of all things that became questionable concerning the Law was to come from those Powers which were under the Soveraign it is manifest that the act of such Power secured the consciences of Inferiors For the promise of the Law being the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise and the body of the people being by the Law to depend upon the determination of their Superiors they practising the Law according to such determination the promise thereof must needs remain indefeisible As for the inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law whereupon as I said they might and did ground a firm hope of everlasting life under the Law it concerned not the consciences of the people how the outward Laws were determined seeing howsoever they were determined this inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law received no hinderance Though the consciences of Superiors from whom those determinations proceeded were so much concerned in them that those who should violate that obedience due to the carnal commandement by determining it to an unjust intent could no wayes pretend any inward and spiritual obedience But Christianity covenanting for this inward and spiritual obedience and expressing everlasting life as the consideration of it and particular Churches being constituted upon these terms and constituting the whole Church which is nothing but the Communion of all Churches whatsoever rights are acknowledged to be in particular Churches which the precept of preaching to and the promise of calling the Gentiles shows might be under several Soveraignties being settled in them already by divine right can never accrue to a Soveraignty though constituted by right but such as God onely alloweth by commanding Government in general but appointeth not by revealing it self in particular And therefore necessarily tend to the constituting of the whole Church by the concurrence of all Churches though of several Soveraignties to the maintenance of that Christianity in which all had equal interest before any Soveraign was Christian And now I cannot mervail if hee that believes not the Scriptures to be Law to Christians otherwise than as they are injoyned by Christian Powers acknowledge no Power in the Apostles of obliging the Church or in any body else beside the Soveraign My mervail is that hee who had pretended all this should neverthelesse acknowledge a right in several Churches that is in the Bodies of Christians dwelling within several Cities the Power of Excommunications and Ordinations and that by the Scriptures that is by divine right For whatsoever act it was or whose act soever it was whereby those rights were settled upon those Churches will hee or will hee not was a Law to those that stood bound to acknowledg such right which was really nothing if no man were bound to acknowledg and to yield effect to it Neither is it mervail if hee acknowledg no Law for the indowment of the Church that acknowledgeth not the judgment of the Levitical Priesthood to have been a Law to the Jewes but by the will of the Soveraign under the Kings But those that acknowledg that indowment to be Gods act not to be voided so long as the Covenant was in force will have seen as good an argument for the like provision to be made for the Church as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel will allow any point of Christianity from the old Scriptures And then as it hath appeared that several Churches are by Gods appointment several Bodies capable of indowment constituting one whole Church which is the Body of all Churches So by the same means it appears that what the Church is once indowed with is as much the Churches as any mans cloak is his own And as the giving of alms in general is not arbitrary
But also evident reason hath been drawn from the difference between the Law and the Gospel why the consequence holds not The second because the supposition of a Society of the Church imports in it means of determining maters controverted in Christianity which the dissolution of Ecclesiastical Power into the Secular voideth The third because those means of determining maters of Christianity will inferre a limitation of that obligation which the determinations of the Church produce in them that are subject to them meerly upon this ground that they cannot produce any effect beyond the means upon which they proceed And these two differences as I have begun to open according as the subject of this discourse hath ministred occasion to do it having hitherto removed this opinion that makes the Church nothing in the nature of a Society nor the act thereof to have any force but that which the Soveraign Power allowes and coming now to determine the means of discerning between true and false in things questionable concerning Christianity together with the effect of the Determinations of the Church I shall have occasion to determine more distinctly in that which follows Which being done it will be time to limit the due bounds by the which the Secular and Ecclesiastical Power are to concurre in the establishment of things to be determined to Christian States and Kingdomes in the mater of Christianity Which will be the due place to meet with that objection which is so hotly pursued in the first Book de Synedriis cap. X. that the Excommunications of the Church have been always thought lible in Christian Common-wealths to be limited by the Secular Power And therefore that there is no Excommunication by divine right Which objection if it have any force must hold in all parts and rights of Ecclesiastical Power as well as in one CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense The Power of binding and loosing supposeth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel but the outward act of Faith Christians are not at liberty to cast themselves into what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselves in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannot punish for Religion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlesse the Church determine the mater of it NOw because the Doctor of Oxford might think himself neglected or disparaged if having considered the first book de Synedriis which in the point of Excommunication hee hath made his own and the Leviathan I should take no notice of that which hee hath added I will not turn my Reader to him till I have noted the particulars in which hee seems to go alone Putting him first in minde to advise how to make his choice whom of the three hee will follow against all Christendom who upon several grounds have set upon the Church and the Article of our Creed that professes the same to destroy it Hee seems most to ground himself upon a supposition that the Power of the Keyes extends no further than the converting of a man to become a true Christian by preaching the Gospel or rather the convicting of him that hee ought so to be Resting therefore in the inward Court of the conscience and not reaching to any visible effect in the Church because nothing can be wanting to the salvation of such a one For him that is loose from sin by this means the Church cannot bind him that is bound by sin it cannot loose They that are by this means loos'd from sin have in themselves every one the Soveraign Power of judging between true false in Christianity as to the inward Court as to the outward their Soveraign They are therefore at their freedom to joyn in Ecclesiastical Communion with whom they like best and being so joyned do constitute a Church And Câ—rches so joyned may as they shall finde their proficience in Christianity require combine themselves with other Churches and assemble themselves in Synods to take order in maters of common concernment provided they be tyed no further by the resolutions of them than every man stands convict by the light which his loosing hath given him that they are either just or requisite By the same right they create themselves Pastors not with any Power to censure either people or Pastors further than reproving And such Churches as these hee imagines the first Synagogues of the Israelites under the Prophets to have been especially in the ten Tribes after Jeroboam Seeing they could not resort to Jerusalem yet resorted to such meetings for that service of God which was not confined to the Temple But the judgment of maters concerning Religion in the outward Court that is as to the world belonging onely to the Soveraign and the Powers derived from him hee vesteth even in the Heathen Emperors to the same effect as in Christian allowing a reason why they do well or ill in the exercise of it as they do that which the Scriptures allow or not but maintaining that they do not exceed their power whatsoever they do So that Excommunications Decrees of Councils Ordinations and whatsoever else may be done in behalf of the Church being done by virtue of this Power whether just or not are valid to â—y the outward man either to stand to them or to undergo the penalty assigned to the transgressing of them which being done in the name and the title of the Church are meer usurpations and nullities The ground then of this deceit which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the first mistake lies in this That a man is loosed from his sin meerly by the act of the inward man acknowledging himself convicted of the truth of Christianity or producing besides what inward act of faith this opinion can require Contrary to that which is settled by the premises that the outward act of professing Christianity is absolutely requisite to obtain forgivenesse of sins and other promises which the Gospel tendreth by the Holy Ghost the gift whereof the Sacrament inferreth For Baptisme presupposing the profession of the true Faith consigned into the hands of the Church requiring it as the condition upon which it tendreth remission of sins and the promise of the Holy Ghost inferreth also the communion of the Church unto which it admitteth Therefore is no body a Christian by believing the Scriptures nor hath by consequence any title to the Kingdom of God but by being baptized Nor is it worth the while among reasonable people to except those who may be prevented by unavoidable necessity of mortality of recovering that Baptisme which they had utterly resolved to submit themselves to any condition to obtain The Rule of the Law being a production of common reason that an exception confirmes a Rule in cases not excepted Now if it appear by the same consent of Christians that evidenceth our common Christianity that hee who obtains Baptisme
is admitted to Baptism is likewise invested with a right and due title to the promises of the Gospel remission of sâ—nnes and everlasting life As it may appear to all that hâ—ve contracted with the Church of England in Gods name that continuing in that which they professed and undertook on ttheir part at their Baptism they are â—ssured of no lesse by the Church And therefore this is and ought to be accounted that power of the Keyes by which men are admitted to the House of God which is his Church as S. Paul saith At least that part of it that is seen and exercised in this first office that the Church can minister to a Christian And seeing no man can challenge the priviledge of that communion to which he is admitted upon condition of that profession which Baptism supposed unlesse he proceed to live according to it it cannot seem strange that the same should be thought to be exercised in the celebration of the Eucharist as it is done with a purpose to communicate the Sacrament thereof to those that receive I shall desire any man that counts this sâ—râ—nge to consider that which I quoted even now out of Epiphanius That the Patriarch of the Jews at Tiberias being baptized by the Bishop put a considerable sum of Gold into his hand saying Offer for me For it is written Whatsoever ye bind on â—atrh shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be losed in heaven For so it follows in Epiphanius And when S. Cyprian blames or forbids offering up the names or offering up the Eucharist in the names of those that had fallen away from the Church in time of persecution till they were reconciled to the Church by Penance doth he not exercise the power of the Keyes in his hands by denying the benefit of those Prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with to them who had forfeited their right to it by failing of that which by their baptism they undertook As on the other side whosoever the Eucharist is offered for that is whosoever hath a part in those Prayers which it is celebrated with is thereby declared loose by the Church upon supposition that he is indeed what he professes And whatsoever Canons of the Church there are of which there are not a few which take order that the offerings of such or such shall or shall not be received they all proceed upon this suppoâ—â—tion that by the power of the Keys they are to be allowed or refused their part of benefit in the Communion of the Eucharist and the effects of iâ— For not to speak of what is by the corruption of men but what ought to be by the appointment of God it is manifest that the admission of a man to the communion of the Eucharist is an allowance of his Christianity as conâ—ormable to that which Baptism professeth though in no sâ—ate of the Church it is a sufficient and reasonable presumption that a man is indeed and before God intitled to the promises of the Gospel that he is admitted to the communion of the Eucharist by the Church because whatsoever profession the Church can receive may be counâ—erfeit But so that it is to be indeavoured by all means possible for the Church to use that the right of communicating with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist be not allowed any man by the Church but upon such terms and according to such laws that a man being qualified according to them may be really and indeed qualified for those promises which the Gospell tendreth Which being supposed every Christian must of necessity acknowledge how great and eminent a power the Lord hath trusted his Church with in celebrating and giving of the Eucharist when he is convinced to believe that the body and blood of Christ is thereby tendred him though mystically and as in a Sacrament yet so truly that the spirit of Christ is no lesse really present with it to inable the souls of all them that receive it with sincere Christianity then the Sacrament is to their bodies or then the same spirit is present in the flesh and bloud of Christ naturally being in the heavens For suppose that by faith alone without receiving this Sacrament a man is assured of the spirit of Christ as by faith alone understanding faith alone as S. Paul meant it I shall show that he may be assured of it yet if he have determined a visible act to be done to the due performance whereof he hath annexed a promise of the participation of the Spirit of Christ by our Spirit no lesse then of the body â—nd blood of Christ Sacramentally present by our bodies And if he hath made the doing of this a part of the Christianity which under the title of Faith alone inâ—iâ—leth to promises of the Gospell for who can be said to professe Christianity that owneth not such an Ordinâ—nce upon such a promise Then hath he determined and limited the truth of that faith which onely justifieth us at the beginning of every mans Christianity to the Sacrament of Baptism but in the proceeding of the same to that of the Eucharist These being the first Powers of the Church and having resolved from the beginning that the power of the Church extends to the deterâ—ining or limiting of any thing requisite to the communion of the Church the determination or limitation wherof by such an act as ought to have the force of Law to them that are of the Church becomes requisite to the communion of Christians in the offices of Gods service in unity I cannot see any of the controversies whereby we stand now divided that can deserve a place in our consideration before that of the Baptism of Infants For as it is a dispute belonging to the first and originall power of the Church to consider whether it extend so farre as when it is acknowledged that there is no written Law of God to that purpose that it may and justly hath provided that all the Children of Christian Parents be baptized Infants so it will apear to concern their salvation more immediately then other Laws limiting the exercise of the Churches power or the circumstances of exercising those offices of God service which it tendeth to determine can be thought to do But Before I come to dispute this point I will here take notice once more of the Book called the Doctrine of Baptisms one of the fruits of this blessed Reformation commonly attributed to the Master of a Colledge in Cambridge proving by a studied dispute that it was never intended by our Lord Christ and his Apostles that Christians should be Baptized at all That John indeed was sent to baptize with water but that the Baptism of Christ is baptism with the Holy Ghost and fire And so long as the Ceremonies of the Law were not abolished in point of fact though become void in point of right so long also baptism by water was practised by the Apostles as
Brethren if any man of you go astray from the truth and some body bring him back let him know that he who brings back a sinner from the errâ—r of his way shall save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sinnes For it is plain by S. Paul that this extendeth to the recovery of a sinner by the Keyes of the Church as they were managed during the Apostles time Certainly if we understand S. Pauls words 1 Tim. V. 22. 24. of imposition of hands in Penance as I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 23. that they may and ought to be understood it is necessarily to be inferred seeing they who admit those sinners to be reconciled unto God by the Prayers which the Church makes for them with imposition of hands signifying thereby that it alloweth them to be sâ—ncerely penitent are partakers of their sinnes which shall follow upon the readmitting of them to the Church being not worthy qualified for it Therefore the Church is to see that a man be qualified for reconciliation with the Church upon supposition of his reconciliation with God before he be reconciled to the Church And in first procuring him and then judging him to be so qualified consists the right use of those Keyes which God hath given the Church towards them that transgresse the profession of Christianity after they have made it The reason of all this is derived from those things which have been setled by the premises The condition which the Gospel proposeth for the remission of sinnes to them who stâ—nd convict by it that they are under sinne is that they return from sinne â—nd believing that our Lord Châ—iâ—t was senâ— by God to cure it undertake to professe that which he taught and to live according to the same Those which professe so to do the Church accepteth of wiâ—hout exception because this being the first account she hath of them she cannot expect more at their hands then that they submit the rest of their lives to that Christianity which she obligeth them to If by trâ—nâ—gressing this obligation which they have undertaken they forfeit the right which they obtainâ—d thereby is it in the power of the Church to restore them at pleasurâ— In vain then is all that hath been said to show that the Gospel and Christianity in order of nature and reason is more ancient then the constitution of the Church and the corporation of it And that all the power of the Chuâ—ch presupposeth the condition upon which those blessings which it tendreth are due And certainly our Lord when he saith to his Diâ—ciples Joh. XX. 23. Whosesoever sinne ye remit they are remitted intended not to contradict the sense of the Sâ—râ—bes when they say Who can forgive sinnes but God alone Mark II. 7. Luk. V. 21. Much lesse to reverse the word of his Prophets ascribing this power of him alone Esay XLIII 25. Mich. VII 18. Psal XXXII 5 What is then the effect of this promise to them that have forfeited the right of their Baptism supposing that when men first become Christians the Disciples of Christ and his Church remit sinnes by making them Christians according to that which hath been declared Surely the same observing the difference of the case For he who being convict of his disease and of the cure of it by the preaching of Christianity is effectually moved by the helpe of Gods Spirit to imbrace that cure which none but the Church which tenders it can furnish attains it not but by using it That is by being baptized But he who being baptized hath failed of his trust and forfeited his interest in Christ cannot so easily be restored I have showed you what works of mortification of devotion and mercy the recovering of Gods grace and favour requirâ—s Let no man therefore thinke that the power of remitting sinnes in the Church can abate any thing of that which the Gospel upon which the Church is grounded requiteth to the remission of finne done after Baptism The authority of the Church is provided by God to oblige those who are overtaken in sinne to undergo that which may satisfie the Church of the sincere intent of their returne And the Church being so satisfied warranteth their restitution to the right which they had forfeited upon as good ground as it warranteth their first estate in it But this presupposeth the wrath of God appeased his favour regained and the inordinâ—te love of the creature which caused the forfeit blotted out and changed through that course of mortification which hath been performed into the true love of goodnesse for Gods sake The Church therefore hath received of God no power to forgive sinnes immediately as if it were in the Church to pardon sâ—nne without that diâ—poâ—ition which by the Gospel qualifieth a man for it Or as if the act of the Church pardoning did produce it But in as much as the knowledge thereof directeth and the authority thereof constraineth to use the means which the Gospell prescribeth in so much is the remission of sinnes thereby obtained truly ascribed to the Church Lazarus was first dead before he was bound up in his Grave clothes And when he was restored to life he remained bound till he was loosed by the Apostles The Church bindeth no man but him that is first dead in sinne If the voice of Christ call him out of that death he is not revived till the love of sin be mortified and the love of God made alive in him by a due course of Penance performed If the motion of Gods spirit upon the preaching of the Gospel convincing a man that there is no means but Christianity to escape out of sinne and prevailing with him to imbrace it be effectuall to obtain the promises of the Gospel Much more shall the actuall operation of the same moving him that is dead in sinne to put sinne to death in himself that he may live a Christian for the future be effectuall to regain the grace of God for him who hath not yet the life of grace in him but is in the way of recovering it by the helpe of Gods grace But he who is thus recovered to life by the ministery of the Church is not yet loosed of the bands of his sinne till he be loosed by the Church because he was first bound by it as our Lord having raised Lazarus to live commands him to be loosed by his Apostles For if he who accepteth of the Gospel and the terms of it remain bound to be baptized by the Church for the remission of his sinne Is it strange that he who hath forfeited his pardon obtained by the Church even in the judgement and knowledge of the Church should not obtain the restoring of it but by the act of the Church And therefore the Church remitteth sinne after Baptism not onely as a Physician prescribing the cure but as a judge admitting it to be effected And the satisfaction of the Church presupposeth
that God is satisfied that is to say his wrath appeased and his favour regained by the means which the Church prescribeth But requireth also that he submit not onely to use the cure which the Church prescribeth but to the judgement thereof in admitting the effect of it And upon these terms and upon no other the virtue of Baptism mortified by sinne reviveth again according to the doctrine of the School For if nothing else but the sincere resolution of living and dying as a Christian can intitle any man to the promises of the Gospel what is it that must intitle him to them that hath once forfeited his title Surely nothing but the renewing of that trust which is forfeited by failing of it And surely that trust is not so easily re-established as it is first contracted I have shewed you in the second Book what reason we have to believe that the severity of the ancient Church in readmitting those that failed of their profession at their Baptism necessarily argues the difficulty of being re-estated in the favour of God There goes more indeed to the satisfying of the Church that he who had failed of his Christianity hath sincerely renewed his resolution for it then to the renewing of it But that this resolution will as well be effectuall and durable as it is sincere it is as difficult to assure a mans selfe as to satisfie the Church The power of the Church then in binding and loosing that is in remitting or retaining sinne consists not onely in declaring a sinner either bound or loose Whether in generall by preaching the Gospel or in particular by refusing or restoring him to the communion of the Church For whom the Church bindeth for sinne known to the Church his pardon is not to be had without the act of the Church But in constraining him that will be a Christian to mortifie the love of sinne in himselfe as his sin declares it to be alive in him is the power of the Church in remitting sinne exercised And in pronouncing sentence of absolution in what form soever the power of assuring the same Let us now look over these same Scriptures again for by them having no other we must judge whether this power extends to all sins so that no sinne after Baptism can be pardoned without the ministery of the Church and the use of it Whether it extend onely to notorious sinners as an abatement of the sentence of excommunication which being liable to upon demonstration of repentance they are admitted to be reconciled by it or lastly whether there be some other reason to determine the extent of it Surely he that argues because God hath given his Disciples this Power and the Church after them therefore he hath commanded all sinners to use it denying all hope of pardon to them that do not use it by declaring their sinnes to them whom the Church trusts for it makes a lame consequence For will any reason allow him to say that otherwise this power signifies nothing when it is granted to extend to the curing of all notorious sinnes That which we learn of it from S. Paul to the Corinthians without all controversie concerns no sinnes but but such The sinne of him that had maried his Fathers wife was so well known that it had raised a party in the Church of such as pretended it to be consistent with Christianity And when S. Paul is afraid that coming to them he shall be fain to put many of them to Penance for the sinnes which having committed they would have made no demonstration of conversion from them before his coming it is evident enough that he speaks of no secret sinnes because the punishment which he pretends to inflict is for standing out against his leters in their sinnes As for that sinne which the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to exclude from reconcilement with God by the Church Apostasy from Christianity it is necessarily and essentially a manifest sinne because it consists in the visible renouncing of that profession which had been visibly made But coming to S. James we find that he commands the Priests of the Church to be sent for promising forgivenesse of sinnes upon their Prayers And therefore when he proceedeth to say Confesse your sinnes to one another and pray for one another we gather that he promiseth the pardon of those sinnes which the sick person shall have confessed to the Priests of the Church For if it be requisite for obtaining the prayers of a Brother for the pardon of our sinnes that we confesse them to him he that prescribes it must needs understand those sinnes which he promises forgivenesse upon their prayers to be declared to them afore It is therefore manifest that the Apostle here delivereth a precept of confessing sinne both to one another and to the Priests of the Church supposing the cure of sinne be known to all Christians by the Tradition of our common Christianity and the visible custome and practice of all Churches by works of humiliation and mortification of devotion and mercy whereby satisfaction is made not onely to the Church which receiveth offense by visible sinne but also to God who is offended by all sinne in that sense and to that effect which hath been justified in the second Book Namely to the appeasing of his wrath to the regaining of his grace and favour to the restoring of the Covenant of Grace contracted at our Baptism which sinne had made void And therefore in virtue of that satisfaction for all sinne which was once made by our Lord Christ upon the Cross without which that which we are able to do towards this effect would all have been to no purpose Whereupon that the Church is not satisfied in such a case but supposing that God is satisfied first and that the prayers which the Church maketh for the pardon of sinne are granted and made or ought to be granted and made upon presumption that the sinner is in a way of obtaining pardon of God by those Prayers upon his submission to the use of those means which either the Priests of the Church by the authority thereof shall injoyn or a Brother by his skill and discretion shall advise This being unavoidably the meaning of the Apostles first it is manifest that all Christians being directed by the Apostle to have recourse to the Keyes of the Church for the cure of sinne in the danger of death they may be more obliged to the same course in time of health because it may then be used whereas in danger of death though it must be prescribed yet it cannot be used but by him that surviveth Secondly it is further implyed that the sinne which a man confesseth to his Brother if he be not able to advise a meete cure for it is not onely by the party but by him also to be brought to the Church And so in both cases you have an injunction of the Apostle for the submitting of secret sinne to the Keyes
of the Church But you have also a possibility for the cure of sinne without the authority of the Church in as much as it had been too impertinent for the Apostle to have given a Precept of confessing sinne to one another if no sinne could be pardoned without having recourse to the Church The same is the effect of S. Johns words If a man see his Brother sinne a sinne not unto death For it is manifest that that sinne which one man sees is not notorious to the Church And yet the distinction which S. John maketh between the sinne which he commandeth a private Christian to pray for and the sinnes which he commandeth not the Church to pray for with the difficulties which the primitive Church had about it show that those sinnes which private advice cannot cure he would have brought to the Church And S. Johns meaning is that a man should pray for such sinnes of his Brother as he is sure are not to death Supposing first his Brother disposed by himself or by his advise to take the course that may qualifie him for forgivenesse But if it prove doubtful whether to death or not the Apostle by saying that there are some sinnes which he referreth to the Church whither to pray for pardon of them to wit in order to restoring them to the communion of the Church or not supposeth that they are reported to the Church by him that saw them when the Church saw them not But first supposing that they might possibly have been cured without bringing them to the Church And if these things be true then is the bringing of a sinner back from the error of his way according to that Precept of S. James which followeth an obligation that is to be discharged not onely by the office of a private Christian in convicting a private Christian of his sinne and of the means that he is to use for his recovery but also by bringing him to the Church if the case require it Which obligation will necesâ—atily lie upon the sinner himself in the first place But so that his own skill and fidelity to his own salvation may possibly furnish him his cure at home The tenor of our Saviours words throughly inforceth the same according to that which I observed in the first Book p. 140. that all Christians may be said to bind sinne by showing a Christian his sinne in case he refuse that cure which he that convicts him of his sinne convicts him that is to use And to loose sin in case he imbrace it But this in the inner Court of the Conscience between God and the soul For though the words of our Lord If thy Brother offend thee tell him of it between him and thee extend to private injuries obliging a Christian first to seek reparation by the good will of his party upon remonstrance of the wrong Then not to seek it out of the Church but by the Church yet they necessarily comprehend all sinnes which another man knows which to him are offences And therefore when our Saviour saith If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother it is manifest that the effect of his promise which followeth Whosoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven is obtained by the act of a private Christian without recourse to the publick authority of the Church And who will believe that the skill and fidelity of some private Christian may not furnish him as good a cure as he can expect to learn from any private Christian to whom he can have recourse And yet the process of our Lords discourse showes that the intent of it concerns in chiefe the exercise of the Keyes of Gods Church even upon those sinnes which are not notorious Which who so considers cannot refuse to grant that S. Pauls injunction for the restoring of him that is surprised in sinne concerns both the office of private Christiaâ—s and also of a whole Church and the Body of it And truly considering what hath been said concerning Scripture and Tradition it cannot seem strange that the Apostles leaving such authority with the Churches of their founding with generall instructions to those whom they trusted them with writing to the Bodies of those Churches things respectively concerning all Christians should give directions concerning all in generall terms which the visible practice of the said Churches might determine to the respective office of each quality and estate in those Churches No more then that our Lord finding the power of the Keyes not yet visible before Christianity should propose his instructions in that generality which onely his Apostles orders and the practice of their Churches upon their instructions determineth For the power of the Keyes in the Church inables it further untill the worlds end to limit further whatsoever shall appear to require further determination to the end of binding and loosing of sinne which it importeth according as the present state of the Church in every age shall require Let us now consider that though I have made evidence by consequence from the writings of the Apostles that remission of sinnes committed after Baptism may be obtained without the Keyes of the Church yet it is hard to find any expresse promise to that effect in their writings unlesse it be that of S. Johns first Epistle In which notwithstanding a limitation of that confession which the Apostle requires to the Church and to those that are trusted by the Church may reasonably be understood supposing the way of curing sinne by the ministery of the Church to have been customary and therefore known at that time And on the contrary though I do believe these consequences to be unreproveable yet it is to be considered that S. Pauls indulgence seems to be granted upon a particular occasion incident to distemper the ordinary course of the Church Namely the prevailing of some sinne to a faction of some great or the greatest part of the Church Which as it necessarily intercepted the use of the power of the Keyes though provided and ordained by God for the curing of the said sinnes so can it by no means argue that God hath not appointed it for the ordinary means of curing them As for the consequence which was made from the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and of the Gospels before the establishment of the Covenant of Baptism to show that they take effect also in sinnes after Baptism It may easily be considered that they take place no further then that disposition which is requisite to the forgivenesse of those sinnes whereby the grace of Baptism is violated may be supposed to be produced without helpe of the Church Which as I conceive I have proved to be possible so I conceive no man living can prove to be so easie that all those who stand in need of the remedy can presume upon so good ground as the safety of the soul requires to obtain it or to have obtained it of themselves without that helpe which
LXIII If a Clergy-man knowing that his wife hath committed adultery dismiss her not LXV Sodomites LXXI If a woman forsaking an adulterer whom she had married afore marry another LXXII If a Christian be slain or confiscate upon the information of a Christian LXXIII If a man accuse a Clergy-man to wit criminally as a subject a subject before secular Powers of a crime which he cannot prove LXXV We see by these very particulars an abatement of that which Tertullian stood upon that no adultery should ever be restored to communion again For here Penance is allowed adultery the first time by the VII And she that leaves her Husband and maryes another is allowed the communion in danger of death As also after her first Husband is dead by the IX And so are Virgines that turn Whores if afterwards they repent and abstain before death by the XIII So for murther a Christian Woman that kills her maid is admitted to Penance by the V. And a Catechumena that is a woman professing Christianity before Baptism that kills the childe conceived of adultery by the LXVIII So in Idolatry Those who onely wear such a Crown as those that sacrificed did wear but sacrifice not nor are at the charge of sacrificing by the LV. And truly that VII Canon which allowes Penance upon adultery onely the first time but refuses the communion of the second time even in danger of death is manifestly more severe then that Rule which divers of the Fathers Origen in Levit. XXV Hom. XV. S. Ambrose de Paenit II. 10. 11. S. Augustine Epist LIII LIV. Hanil L. do mention as in force and use at their time to wit that Penance cannot be done the second time For though a man be not readmitted to communion by Penance upon falling into the same or a more grievous crime the second time yet may be allowed the communion in danger of death Just as S. Ambrose ad Virginâ—â— Lapsam cap. VIII censures her to do Penance till death Innocent I. Pope Epist II. expresly affirms that this was done in consideration of the times because if men were lightly admitted after having fallen in persecution who would hazard life for the profession of his faith But that afterwards either the Church must be Novatians or grant Penance in danger of death And truly the breach which the Novatians made must needs oblige the Church to readmit unto communion in danger of death But if the Church were obliged to be strict when there was fear of persecution least all should fall away then was it obliged to abate when many were fallen away that the Body thereof might be recovered and restored And the words of Innocent that follow are sufficient to show how much the Church then presumed upon that Penance that Absolution that communion which a man was admitted to upon confession of sinne in danger of death For he saith Tribuetur ergo cum Poenitentiâ extrema Communio The last Communion therefore shall be allowed with Penaâ—ce Now it is evident by the Canons which Gratiane hath compiled XXVI Quaest VI. VII VIII Quaest VII cap I. that when a man was admitted to Penance upon confession in danger of death the communion was given him provisionally as well to obtain the grace of God to strengthen him in that exigent as for the quiet of his conscience but neverthelesse he stood bound over to perform the Penance which was or should be injoyned in case he recovered And therefore when Pope Caelestine I Epist I. invayes against those who refused Absolution and the communion in danger of death and Leo I. Pope Epist LIX orders that they be reconciled by giving them the Communion It is to be supposed that they understand this Penance to be injoyned in that case because the custome of the Church required it And this serves to void the doubt that may be made what the Keyes of the Church can have to do in the remitting of sinnes as soon as they are confessed which serve to loose sinne no further then they serve to procure and to create that disposition which qualifies for forgivenesse You saw afore in the second Book what difficulty the ancient Church made in warranting the salvation of those that repented upon their Death bed though they proceeded to submit themselves and their sinnes to the Keyes of the Church for their absolution and the communion of the Eucharist at their departure And though Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles cap. LXXX say freely that he is a Novation and not a Christian that presumes not faithfully of Gods mercifull purpose to save that which was lost even in him that departs upon confessing his sinne yet still this is but a presumption of what may be not a warrant of what is which the power of the Keyes regularly used promises Otherwise what would Gennadius say to the great Councill of Arles under Constantine which denies absolution in that case Can. I. as you see the Eliberitane Canons do True it is which S. Cyprian saith Nunquam sera est poenitentia si sit vera Repentance is never late if it be true But who will maintain that to be true which the terrour of death and remorse of conscience may rack out of him in whom the love of God and goodnesse hath not formed that resolution of maintaining his professed Christianity which makes God the end of all his actions when as all that is done in such a case by common experience may be imputed to a true grounded desire of avoiding punishment for his own sake with a superficiall desire of doing well for Gods sake Though on the other side it may be presumed that such a one is not first moved with dislike of his sinne when first he submits it to the Keyes of the Church but hath first done many such acts of sincere contrition as his own judgement directed him to for the gaining of Gods grace And at length to give himselfe further satisfaction resolves to humble himselfe not onely to the declaring of his own shame but to the undergoing of that Penance upon performance whereof the Rules of the Church also warrant his forgivenesse Between these contrary presumptions the primitive severity of the Church it appears refused absolution and the communion even in danger of death to some of the most grievous sins Which afterwards was thought fit to be abated Not proclaiming dispair to any sinner but to oblige him not lightly to presume upon pardon of that sinne which the Church could never presume that a man can repent him of enough For on the other side it appears what inconvenience the granting of reconcilement to all at the point of death may produce if the intent of the Church in binding over to Penance him that escapes be not understood Namely to give men cause to presume of pardon by the Church when the Keyes thereof cannot have their operation in producing the disposition that is requisite And thus the primitive practice of the Church
seems to demonstrate not only the Tradition of the Apostles concerning Penance and Excommunication which it abateth and the Keyes of the Church which it manageth but also the Power which it exerciseth not to consist in pardoning sinne at large and immediately but in procuring that disposition to which the Gospel hath proclaimed forgiveness and upon knowledge thereof in assuring the pardon which it pronounceth For whoso considereth the premises can never be so madd as to imagine that men were refused reconcilement even at the point of death or reconciled with a reservation of Penance to be performed if they survived meerly for the satisfaction of the Church and the example of others But because the Church remained not satisfied that God was satisfied with their present disposition as qualifying them for pardon according to his promise Some men have mistaken themselves so farr as to imagine that when a man was admitted to absolution by imposition of hands and the Communion in danger of death by the ancâ—ient Church he could stand bound no further to any Penance But it is very evident in the practice of the ancient Church that in regard some sinnes were not admitted to reconcilement by Penance therefore it concerned the Penitent in the first place to make suit to be admitted Which being granted and he having undertaken the Penance imposed upon him in the next place he was admitted to the Prayers of the Church at all the solemn Assemblies of the Church during the time of his Penance with imposition of hands as the means to obtain pardon at Gods hands So Imposition of hands signified not Absolution but the way to it and capacity of it supposing the performance of Penance imposed And this is petere poenitentiam accipere poenitentiam propter manûs impositionem in the ancient canons by name Concil Tolet. XI can XII to demand Penance and to accept of Penance by imposition of hands As appears by that form of the publick service of the Church which you have in the Constituions II. 8. 9. where you have the form of prayer to be offered for Penitents when they were dismissed before the celebration of the Eucharist he that prayeth holding his hands over them kneeling Neither was there any other absolution then this in use according to the ancient custome of the Church He who having declared himself offended at himself for that which he had done had obtained of the Church to be admitted to Penance for the time that his Penance continued was prayed for by the Church that his sinne might be pardoned in order to communion with the Church The time of his Penance being compleated his absolution was the restoring of him to communion with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist This is that absolution upon which the Church warranteth his pardon not by pronouncing him pardoned but supposing him qualified for it by that disposition which his Penance had produced And though afterwards the form of absolution changed and was pronounced by way of sentence not by way of Prayer desired yet was there still the more doubt to be made of the validity thereof the more confidence it signified because the more trust was reposed in the power of the Church the lesse provision was made for that disposition which the Gospel before the being of the Church requireth One thing more I desire may be considered in the practice of the ancient Church to evidence the same which is this The Church being necessitated to abate of the primitive strictnesse and to admit all maner of sinnes to reconcilement by Penance that they might the better answer their trust to God in not warranting the pardon of sinne without reasonable trial of repentance took a course of lengthning the time of Penance during which the conversation of the Penitent might yield assurance of it For the Canons whereby so many years Penance is prescribed upon such and such sinnes were couched in writing long after the times of Montanus or Novatians And therefore the customes whereby they came in force before they came in writing had their beginning from that obligation which the Church desired to discharge of not warranting forgiveness of sinne but upon due grounds In this case then and generally whosoever was injoyned Penance to qualifie him for communion with the Church if he did any eminent act which might evidence the sincerity and zeal of his conversion or his forwardness and eagerness in taking revenge upon himself was not onely of custome and course so much the easier readmitted by the Church but was ordered by the Canons to be so much the easier and sooner readmitted For evidence whereof as also of divers other particulars here alleadged I will remit the Reader that would be informed to Morinus his great work de administratione Poenitentiae It shall serve my turn here to point out to you the ground which these effects evidence to be this That the Catholick Church proceeded not in binding and loosing as if it had any power to give pardon at large But as supposing that those that are bound by the Church cannot be loosed but by the Church nor loosed by the Church but supposing the disposition that qualifieth for pardon produced in them by that Penance which the authority thereof constraineth to undergo And therefore that in the power of injoyning Penance fitting as well as of declaring pardon the power of forgiving sinnes in the Church is by the tradition of the Church declared to consist I will conclude with the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Casarea Cappadocia in his Leter to S. Cyprian among S. Cyprians LXXV He saith that they used in their parts to hold Synods every year Ut si qua graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur Lapsis quoque fatribus post lavacrum salutare à Diabolo vulneratis per poenitentiam medela quaeratur Non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur sed ut per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur This businesse of greater waight may be ordered by common advice And remedy found by Penance for brethren that have fallen away being wounded by the Devill after the laver of salvation Not as if they got pardon of sinnes from us but that being by our means converted to understand their own sinnes they may be constrained to make the fuller satisfaction to God These are the very terms upon which my opinion standeth Let us now compare the Originall and general practice of the Church with that which we have in the Apostles writings and say by the agreement whither their authority were the beginning of it or not Shall we think that all who ever questioned the reconciling of some sinnes were utterly void of common sense in imagining that the Apostle to the Hebrews and S. John writing of the sin unto death intended not to speak of that pardon which the Church may or ought to give or not give when
predestined to life and by calling to mind the assurance which once he hath had of it Or that he hath no more to do but to talke with his Confessor and give him content who it is great odds does not believe any Penance to be required to qualifie him for pardon but to redeem the debt of temporall punishment remaining after it is had Whereby we may conclude what to think of the performing of Penance after absolution is pronounced I do remember what I have said of S. James that when he commanded the Presbyters of the Church to be sent for to the sick and to pray for him with assurance of pardon for his sinnes he supposeth those sinnes to be declared by him to them whereupon it follows immediately Confesse your sins one to another and pray for one another together with his present disposition in regard of them and that if the case were such as required the hardship of laborious Penance to satisfie the Church of the sincerity of his conversion though they prayed for him that is suffered him not to go out of the world without the communion of the Church yet they bound him over to perform that Penance if he recovered which the Church required in the like cases For can any man certainly know that the whole Church used so to do from the most ancient times that we have record of and doubt that the Apostle speaking of that very subject should suppose the same Neither do I doubt knowing what varieties fall out in all kinds of moral maters that the same proceeding may be either necessary or reasonable in other cases But that the regular proceeding of the Catholick Church should be laid aside that no further satisfaction should be demanded then whether a man hath performed all that was injoyned him when he confessed last or not this I say leaves it free to every mans interpretation whether it tend to abolish the sinne or not and by consequence whether a man can or ought so to rest satisfied or further be bound to see himselfe qualified for pardon according to the Covenant of Grace To which purpose the form of absolution by way of pronouncing sentence not of seeking pardon from God is to be considered Not that I doubt that the Church hath power to restore to communion with the Church which this sentence effecteth and to loose the bond of that sinne which it hath tied For if it be necessary for every Christian to be of the Church then is it necessary for him to seek remission of those sinnes which are under the Ministery of the Church by the means which the Church hath appointed But becaus I know that the primitive form of absolution must needs agree with those Scriptures which show the means of obtaining remission of sin by the Church for a great part to consist in the prayers of the Church And that the effect thereof did consist in nothing else but in being admitted to the prayers thereof for Penitenâ—â— with imposition of hands signifying the same And therefore the present form is an evidence that the discipline of the Church is decayed in the mater of Penance since the zeal of Christianity came to decay after that the Powers of the world professing Christianity could not but countenance it with those privililedges and penalties which necessarily follow the Religion of the State and by consequence temporall respects were great ingredients in perswading men to be Christians What the effect hereof may have been I will not undertake But when the world is obliged to take the sentence for good as from God and not obliged to presuppose the means to produce that disposition which onely quilifieth for pardon is not the scandall probable in and to those that have not more care of their souls then they see the Church have Sentence of absolution is pronounced Penance is reserved in regard of temporall penalties due what doth this proceeding pretend but that he who saith he is sorry for his sinne so he be content to sue out his pardon from the Church is qualified for it by the Keys of the Church that is by the sentence of it not by the Ministery of it in producing that disposition which qualifies for it It is not then to be said that the Church in the discipline of Penance hath not a certain Jurisdiction as every Corporation must necessarily have in imitation of that which by the Roman Laws is first and originally called Jurisdiction which the sword of the Empire inforceth For if no Corporation can stand without power to provide Laws for themselves if all such are mockeries if they be not inforced by penalties obliging obedience then is the corporation of the Church if ordained by God by God inabled to inforce and constrain obedience upon supposition that a man desires to be saved by his Christianity and that the communion of the Church is a part of it And the exercise of this power is rightly called the Jurisdiction of the Church which ariseth upon the orignall constitution of it But if this Jurisdiction suppose the Covenant of Grace and therefore cannot discharge any man that is not qualified as it requireth then is the sentence of absolution to presuppose the disposition requisite for pardon to have been produced by the Keyes of the Church that is by using the means which the Church as a Physitian prescribeth but further as a Judge constraineth him to taâ—â—â— that findeth it requisite to be reconciled to the Church because he is a Christian And now it will not be difficult to judge of the Law of auricular Confession once a year now in force by the Council of Lateran in the Church of Rome For having marked the abuses hitherto reproved so that I cannot be taken by any man that hath any conscience left to allow any of them and having formerly inferred by necessary consequence that it is in the power of the Church to limit and determine the circumstances of doing that which a good conscience alwaies will indure and probably will require any man to do I must conclude it to be a Law which the Church hath power to make Not as if God had commanded the Ministery of the Church to be secret For as I have showed from the beginning that the prayers of the Church are by the appointiment of our Lord Christ and the practice of his Apostles the means to obtain pardon so I have showed that it was also practised by the primitive Church And therefore I do maintain that from the beginning there was not nor could be any difference between the inward and outward Court of the Church as now there must needs be wheresoever Excommunion is inflicted upon notorious sinnes and sinnes that are not notorious are cured in secret by the the Keyes of the Church For whether it were the knowledge of others or a mans own conscience that brought his sinnes to be cured by the Ministery of the Church they came before those
of fact to be the same For the Unity of so great a Body will not allow that the terms should be strict or nice upon which the communion thereof standeth But obligeth all tâ—at love the general good of it to pass by even those imperfections in the Laws of it which are visible if not pernicious But where this Unity is once broken in pieces and destroyeâ— and palliating cures are out of date the offense which is taken at showing the true cure is imputable to them that cause the fraction not to him that would â—ee it restored For what disease was ever cured without offending the body that had it The cause of Episcopacy and of the Service is the cause of the whole Church and the maintenance thereof inferreth the maintenance of whatsoever is Catholick Owning therefore my obligation to the Whole Church notwithstanding my obligation to the Church of England I have prescribed the consent thereof for a boundary to all interpretation of Scripture all Reformation in the Church Referring my â—pinion â—n point of Fact what is Catholick to them who by their Title are bound to acknowledg that whatsoever is Catholick ought to take place While all English people by the Laws of the Church of England had suffiâ—iâ—nâ— and probable means of salvation ministred to them it had been a fault to acknowledg a fault which it was more mischief to mâ—nd than to bear with But when the Unity that is lost may as well be obtained by the primitive Truth and Order of the Catholick Church as by that which served the turn in the Church of England because it served to the salvation of more I should offend good Christians to think that they will stand offended at it In fine all variety of Religion in England seems to be comprised in three parties Papists Prelatical and Puritanes comprehending under that all parties into which the once common name stands divided All of them are originally as I conceive terms of disgrace which therefore I have not been delighted with using This last I have found some cause to frequent when I would signifie some thing common to all parties of it If with eagerness at any time the English Proverb says Loosers may have leave to speak I finde my self disobliged by the Papists in that desiring to serve God with all Christians they barr mee their CoÌ„munion by clogging it with conditions inconsistent with our common Christianity I finde my self disobliged by the Puritanes in that desiring to serve God with all Christians but acknowledging the Catholick Church I stand obliged by the Rule of it not to communicate with Hereticks or Schismaticks I complain for no Benefice or other advantage That desiring to communicate with all Christians I am confined for opportunity of serving God with his Church to the scartered remains of the Church of England is that for which I complain If owning this offense I suffer mine indignation at the pretense of Inâ—allibility or of Reformation to escape from mee I do not therefore intend to revenge my self by words of disgrace Let him that thinks so call mee Prelatical let him use mee with no more moderation than I use In the mean time I remain secured that the offense which my opinion may give is imputable in the sight of God to those that cause the division One offense I acknowledg and cannot help That I undertake a design of this consequence and am not able to go through with it as it deserves I should not have set Pen to paper till my materials had been prepared in writing that no term might have escaped mee unexamined Till the quotations of mine Authors had been all before mee so as to need no recourse to the Copies A labor which I have not been able every where to undergo In fine till I had cleared all pretense of obscurity or ambiguity in my language For the obscurity of my mater I am not sory for If writing in English because here the occasion commences the reasons by which I determine the sense of the Scriptures in the Original if the consequence oâ— it in some maters seem obscure I conceive it ought to teach the World that the people are made parties to those disputes whereof they are not able to be judges And I am willing to bear the blame of obscure if that lesson may be learned by the people The desire of easing my thoughts by giving them vent hath resolved mee to put them into the world â—ough-baked on purpose to provoke the judgments of all parties â—or the furnishing of a second Edition if God grant mee life with that which shall be missing in this I am therefore content to confine my self to the model of an abridgment and referr my self for the consent of the Church to those books which I am best satiâ—fied with in each point When that could not be done I have alleged authorities which I may call translatitias because I lay them down as I finde them alleged Not doubting that I justifie my opinion so farr as I desire to do here that there is no consent of the Church against it What the sense of the Church is positively and hath been into which I conceive that which here I say hath made mee a fair entrance I shall upon examination of particulars indeavor to give satisfaction in that which may be found missing here In the mean time it shall suffice to have advanced thus much towards the common interest of Christianity in the re-union of the Church But let no man therefore barre mee the lot of Reconcilers To be contradicted on all sides I profess no such thing It is enough for the greatest Powers in Christendom to undertake If it be an offense for a man of my years equally concerned with all Christians in our common Christianity to say his opinion upon what terms the parties ought to reconcile themselves it remains that offenses remain unreconcileable But contradiction from all parties I shall not be displeased with Hee that will tell mee alone in writing what hee findes fault with and why shall do a work of charity to mee alone Hee that will tell the world the same shall do mee the same charity that hee does the world in it Hee who can delight in that barbarous course which Controversies in Religion have been managed with among Christians by casting personal aspersions Let him rather do it than be silent provided the stuff hee brings be considerable to bear out such inhumanity among civil people But let him consider the dependences and concernments of the point hee speaks to let him not say for answer that these things are answered by our Divines It is easie to make â—bjections but not easie to clear difficulties And whether or no these difficulties were clear already I must referr it to the Reader to judge In the mean time though no arbitrator to chuse a middle opinion for partiâ—s to agree in I take upon mee the person of a Divâ—ne in
CHAP. IX The Keyes of the Church given to the Apostles and exercised by excommunication under the Apostles The ground thereof is that profession which all that are baptized are to make That Penance and abatâ—ment of Penance hath been in force ever since and under the Apostles In particular of excluding Hereticks CHAP. X. Evidence of the Apostles act from the effect of it in preserving the Vnity of the Church Of the businesse of Marcion and Montanus That about keeping Easter That of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of Dionysius Alexandrinus and Arius Of communicatory leters and the intercourse of the Church under and after the Apostles CHAP. XI Upon what grounds the first book de Synedriis holds that the Church cannot excommunicate Before the law there was no such Power nor by it Christians went for Jewes under the Apostles His sense of some Scriptures What the Leviathan saith in generall concerning the Power of the Church Both suppose that Ecclesiasticall Power includeth Temporall which is not true Of the Oxford Doctors Paraenesis CHAP. XII That the Law expresly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it required was grounded upon reason from the true God the tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than he precepts of the Law the lâ—ve of our Neighbor onely to Jews Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law CHAP. XIII That the Law tendereth no other promise but that of the Land of Canaan How the Resurrection is signified by the Prophets Expresse texts of the Apostles Their Arguments and the Arguments of our Lord do suppose the mystical sense of the Scriptures That this sense is to be made good throughout the Scripture wheresoever the ground of it takes place Christianity well grounded supposing this What parts of Scripture may be questionable whether they have a mysticall sense or not The sayings and doings of our Lord have it As also those passages of the Old Testament which are fulfilled by the same The sense of the Fathers CHAP. XIV The Leviathans opinion that Christ came to restore that Kingdome of God which the Jewes cast off when they rejected Sâ—muel It overthroweth the foundation of Christianity The true Government of Gods ancient people The name of the Church in the New Testament cannot signifie the Synagogue Nor any Christian State CHAP. XV. How the Power of the Church is founded upon the Law The Power of the Kingdome Priesthood Prophets and Rulers of that people all of divine right How farre these qualities and the powers of them are to continue in the Church The sense of the Fathers in this point That the acts of S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles were nâ—t of force by virtue of the Law What Ecclesiastical Power should have been among the Jewes in case they had received the Gospel and so the state had stood CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The Right of the Church to Tythes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jews It is not necessary that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing That the incestuous person at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul Jurisdiction of the Church Telling the Church binding and loosing holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicanâ— signifie the same The coherence of our Lords discourse Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians How it may be said to be voluntary Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians CHAP XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The dâ—fference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Seculâ—r Power in determining maters of faith presuppâ—seâ—h the Socieâ—y of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to profâ—sse tâ—e contrary of that which he believeth Every man is bound to professe thâ—t Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chiefe Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather then the State neither being infallible 146 CHAP. XX. The rest of the Oxford Doctors pretense The Power of binding and loosing supposeth not onely the Preaching of the Gospel but the outward act of Faith Christians are not at liberty to cast themselves in what formes of Churches the Law of Nature alloweth They are Judges in chief for themselvss in mater of Religion supposing the Catholick Church not otherwise Secular Power cannâ—t punish for Relâ—gion but supposing the act of the Church nor do any act to inforce Religion unlâ—sse the Church determine the mater of it 151 CHAP. XXI How the Tradition of the Church limits the interpretation of Scriptures How the declaration of the Church becomes a reasonable marke of Heresie That which is not found in the Scriptures may have been delivered by the Apostles Some things delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures may not oblige S. Austines Rule of Apostolical Traditions 159 CHAP. XXII The Authority of the Fathers is not grounded upon any presumption of their Learning or Holinesse How farr they challenge the credit of Historical truth The pre-eminence of the Primitive The presumption that is grounded upon their ranks and qualities in the Church Of Arnobius Lactantius Tertulliâ—n Origen Clemens and the approbation of Posterity 165 CHAP. XXIII Two iâ—stances against the premises besides the obâ—ection concerning the beginning of Antichrist under the Apostles The General answer to it The seven Trumpeâ—s in the Apocalypse fore-tell the destruction of the Jewes The seven Vials the plagues inflicted upon the Empire for the ten persecutions The correspondence of Daniels Prophesie inferreth the same Neither S. Pauls Prophesie nor S. Johns concerneth any Christian Neither the opinion of the Chiliasts nor the the giving of the Eucharist to Infants new Baptized Catholick 169 CHAP. XXIV Two sorts of means to resolve whatsoever is resolvable conceâ—rning the Scripture Vpon what terms the Church may or
Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it 125 CHAP. XV. Another opinion admiâ—ting the ground of Lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Continence and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bound of Ecclesiastical Power in Mariage upon these grounds 134 CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Governours and Ministers of the Church Vpon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standath in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence for the Hierarchy which it yeeldeth Of those Scriptures which seem â—o speake of Presbyteries or Congregations 145 CHAP. XVII The power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Elders 152 CHAP. XVIII The Apostlet all of equall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-eminence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it 161 CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The business of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine 168 CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminence of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Niâ—aea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the Superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth 175 CHAP. XXI Of the times of Gods service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of mâ—ats and measure of Fasting Of keeping of our Lords Birth-day and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service 190 CHAP. XXII The people of God tied to build Synâ—gogues though not by the leter of the Law The Church to provide Churches though the Scripture command it not Prescribing the form of Gods publick service is not quenching the Spirit The Psalter is prescribed the Church for Gods Praises The Scriptures prescribed to be read in the Church The order of reading them to be prescribed by the Church 203 CHAP. XXIII The consecration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it The Lords Prayer prescribed in all Services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the formes of other Offices 211 CHAP. XXIV The service of God prescribed to be in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kinds commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse 217 CHAP. XXV Prayer the more principall Office of Gods service then Preaching Preaching neither Gods word nor the meanes of salvation unlesse limited to the Faith of Gods Church What the edification of the Church by preaching further requires The Order for divine service according to the course of the Church of England According to the custome of the universal Church 273 CHAP. XXV Idolatry presupposeth an imâ—gination that there is more Gods then one Objections out of the Scripture that it is the worship of the true God under an Image the Original of worshipping the elements of the world The Devill And Images Of the Idolatry of Magicians and of the Gnosticks What Idolatry the cases of Aaron and Jeroboam involve Of the Idolatries practised under the Kings and Judges in answer to objections 282 CHAP. XXVI The place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God 302 CHAP. XXVII The Souls of the Fathers were not in the Devils Power till Christ Though the Old Testament declare not their estate Of Samuels soul The soul of our Lord Christ parting from his body went with the Thiefe to Paradise Of his triumph over the powers of darknesse Prayer for the dead signifieth â—o delivering of souls out of Purgatory The Covenant of Grace requires imperfect happinesse before the generall judgement Of forgivenesse in the world to come and paying the utmost farthing 310 CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of souls before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Vâ—rge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soul during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church 325 CHAP. XXIX The ground upon which Ceremonies are to be used in the service of the Church Instances out of the Scriptures and Tradition of the Apostles Of the equivocation of the word Sacrament in the Fathers The reason of a Sacrament in Baptism and the Eucharist In extream Unction In Mariage In Confirmation Ordination and Penance 340 CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of Prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandment prohibiteth or alloweth The second Council of Nicaea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshipping of Images 350 CHAP. XXXI The ground for Monastical life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it
is sufficient to evidence that it is the word of God which they contain This if wee can resolve in our way perhaps wee may discover ground to stand upon when wee come to the main Hee that sayes the Scriptures are to be believed for themselves exposes them to the scorn of unbelievers by tying himself to use no other reason for them least for that reason they should finde that credit which the seeking of it showes they had not of themselves Hee that sayes they are to be believed for the authority of the Church is bound to give account how wee shall know both that there is a Church which some persons may oblige And who is the Church that is who be the men whose act obliges the Church And that without alleging Scripture because hitherto wee have no reason to receive it And being but men how their Act obliges the Church which cannot be showed without showing that God hath founded a Corporation of his Church and given power to some men or some qualities or ranks of men in it to oblige the whole Which how it will be showed without means to determine the sense of the Scriptures the parties agreeing in nothing but the truth of Christianity and of the Scriptures is impossible to be said This position then induces that stop to all proceeding by reason which Logicians call a Circle When a man disputes in a round as a mill-horse grindes arguing this power to be in the Church by the Scriptures without which hee can say nothing to it and arguing the truth of the Scriptures back again by alleging the authority of the Church Which destroyes that supposition upon which all dispute of reason proceeds that nothing can be proved but by that which is better known than that which it proveth But are those that allege the spirit for the evidence upon which they receive the Scripture lesse subject to this inconvenience For is it not manifest that men may and do delude themselves with an imagination that Gods Spirit tells them that which their own Spirit without Gods Spirit conceives How then shall it discerned what comes from Gods Spirit what does not without supposing the Scriptures by which the mater thereof is discernable And is not this the same Circle to prove the truth of the Scriptures by the dictate of Gods Spirit and that by alleging the Scriptures To make the ground of this inconvenience still more evident I will here insist upon this presumption That the gift of the Holy Ghost presupposeth Christianity that is the belief and profession of the Christian Faith And therefore that no man can know that hee hath the Holy Ghost but hee must first know the truth of Christianity and of the Scriptures Not that it is my meaning either to suppose or prove in this place that whoso hath the Spirit of God doth or may know that hee hath it For that is one of those controversies which wee are seeking principles to resolve But that no man can know that hee hath the Spirit of God unlesse first hee know himself to be a true Christian That is to say that supposing for the present but not granting that a man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit and that it is Gods Spirit which moves him to believe this or that hee must first know what is true Christianity and by consequence the means to discern between true and false And this I propose for an assumption necessary to the evidencing of that which followes but not questioned by any party in the Church because it is a principle in Christianity that the Grace of the Holy Ghost is a promise peculiar to those that undertake it Who were they on whom the Holy Ghost was first bestowed Was it not the Apostles and the rest of Disciples assembled to serve God with the Offices of the Church that is to say already Christians When Philip had converted the Samaritanes came S. Peter and S. John to give them the Holy Ghost by laying on their hands till they were baptized Concerning the Disciples at Ephesus Acts XIX 1-6 there is some dispute whether they received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of S. Pauls hands by virtue of the Baptism of John which they had received before they met with S. Paul or whether they were baptized over and above with the baptisme of Christ and thereupon received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of S. Pauls hands But of this they that will have them to have been baptized only with S. Johns baptisme make no dispute that they were fully made Christians by it Can any thing be clearer than S. Pauls words Gal. II. 2-5 That by the hearing of Faith that is obeying it they had received the Holy Ghost which by the works of the Law they could not receive And 2 Cor. XI 4. If hee that cometh preach another Jesus whom wee preached not or yee receive another Spirit which yee received not or another Gospel which yee admitted not Another Jesus another Gospel inferreth another Spirit So Gal. III. 14. That the blessing of Abraham may come upon the Gentiles through Christ Jesus that yee may receive the promise of the Holy Ghost by Faith The promise of the Holy Ghost then supposeth the condition of Faith And Gal. IV. 6. Because yee are sons therefore God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father Heb. VI. 6. It is impossible for those that were once inlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and became partakers of the Holy Ghost Upon inlightening that is baptisme followes the participation of the H. Ghost And seeing the resurrection of the flesh unto glory is ascribed by S. Paul to the Spirit of God that dwelt in it while it lived upon earth Rom. VIII 10 11. as the resurrection of our Lord Christ is ascribed to the Spirit of holinesse that dwelt in him without measure Rom. I. 4. John III. 34. of necessity the Holy Ghost dwelleth in all them that shall rise to glory But Baptisme assureth resurrection to glory Therefore it assureth the Holy Ghost by which they rise Nor can it be understood how wee are the Temple of God because the Spirit of God dwelleth in us 1 Cor. III. 16. but because the promise of the Holy Ghost dependeth upon that which distinguisheth Christians from other people In fine when our Saviour promiseth John XIV 23. If any man love mee hee will keep my word and my Father will love him and wee will come to him and abide with him Seeing the Father and the Son do dwell in those that love God by the grace of the Holy Ghost the gift of the Holy Ghost of necessity supposeth the love of God in them that have it And yet his discourse is more effectual Rom. VIII 1-9 That there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ Jesus that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit For as hee inferreth that if any man have not the
words of S. Augustine contra Epistolam fundamenti cap. V. which alwaies have a place in this dispute though I can as yet admit S. Augustine no otherwise than as a particular Christian and his saying as a presumption that hee hath said no more than any Christian would have said in the common cause of all Christians against the Manichees Ego Evangelio non crederem saith hee nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae moveret authoritas I would not believe or have believed the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholick Church moved mee For some men have imployed a great deal of learning to show that moveret stands for movisset as in many other places both of S. Augustine and of other Africane Writers And without doubt they have showed it past contradiction and I would make no doubt to show the like in S. Hierome Sidonius and other Writers of the decaying ages of the Latine tongue as well as in the Africane Writers if it were any thing to the purpose For is not the Question manifestly what it is that obligeth that man to believe who as yet believeth not Is it not the same reason that obliges him to become and to be a Christian Therefore whether moveret or movisset all is one The Question is whether the authority of the Church as a Corporation that is of those persons who are able to oblige the Church would have moved S. Austine to believe the Gospel because they held it to be true Or the credit of the Church as of so many men of common sense attesting the truth of those reasons which the Gospel tenders why wee ought to believe What is it then that obliged S. Austine to the Church The consent of people and nations that authority which miracles had begun which hope had nourished charity increased succession of time settled from S. Peter to the present the name and title of Catholick so visible that no Heretick durst show a man the way to his Church demanding the way to the Catholick So hee expresseth it cap. 111. And what is this in English but the conversion of the Gentiles foretold by the Prophets attested by God and visibly settled in the Unity of the Church Whereupon hee may boldly affirm as hee doth afterwards that if there were any word in the Gospel manifestly witnessing Manes to be the Apostle of Christ hee would not believe the Gospel any more For if the reason for which hee had once believed the Church that the Gospel is true because hee saw it verified in the being of the Church should be supposed false there could remain no reason to oblige us to take the Gospel for true All that remaines for the Church in the nature and quality of a Corporation by this account will be this That it is more discretion for him that is in doubt of the truth of Christianity to take the reason of it from the Church that is from those whom the Church trusteth to give it than from particular Christians who can by no means be presumed to understand it so well as they may do For otherwise supposing a particular Christian sets forth the same reasons which the Church does how can any man not be bound to follow him that is bound to follow the Church So that the reasons which both allege being contained in the Scriptures the Church is no more in comparison of the Scriptures than the Samaritane in comparison of our Lord himself when her fellow-citizens tell her John IV. 12. Wee believe no more for thy saying For wee our selves have heard and know that this is of a truth the Saviour of the World the Christ For the reasons for which our Lord himself tells us that wee are to believe are contained in the Scriptures But by the premises it will be most manifest that the same Circle in discourse is committed by them who resolve the reason why they believe into the dictate of the Spirit as into the decree of the Church For the question is not now of the effective cause whether or no in that nature a man is able to imbrace the true Faith without the assistance of Gods Spirit or not Which ought here to remain questionable because it is to be tried upon the grounds upon which here wee are seeking And therefore that Faith which is grounded upon revelation from God and competent evidence of the same is to be counted divine supernatural Faith without granting whatsoever wee may suppose any supernatural operation of Gods Spirit to work it in the nature of an effective cause which must remain questionable supposing the reason why wee believe the Scriptures But in the nature of an object presenting unto the understanding the reason why we are to believe it is manifest by the premises that no man can know that hee hath Gods Spirit that knoweth not the truth of the Scriptures If therefore hee allege that hee knowes the Scriptures to be true because Gods Spirit saith so to his Spirit hee allegeth for a reason that which hee could not know but supposing that for granted which hee pretendeth to prove To wit That the dictate of his own Spirit is from Gods Spirit Indeed when the motives of Faith proceed from Gods Spirit in Moses and the Prophets in our Lord and his Apostles witnessing by the works which they do their Commission as well as their message who can deny that this is the light of Gods Spirit Again when wee govern our doings by that which wee believe and not by that which wee see who will deny that this is the light of Faith and of Gods Spirit But both these considerations take place though wee suppose the mater of Faith to remain obscure in it self though to us evidently credible for the reasons God showes us to believe that hee saith it If any man seek in the mater of Faith any evidence to assure the conscience in the nature of an object or reason why wee are to believe that is not derived from the motives of Faith outwardly attesting Gods act of revealing it hee falls into the same inconvenience with those who believe their Christianity because the Church commends it and again the Church because Christianity commends it As for that monstrous imagination that the Scripture is not Law to oblige any man in justice to believe it before the Secular Powers give it force over their subjects Supposing for the present that which I said before that it is all one question whether Christianity or whether the Scriptures oblige us as Law or not Let mee demand whether our Lord Christ and his Apostles have showed us sufficient reasons to convince us that wee are bound to believe and become Christians If not why are wee Christians If so can wee be obliged and no Law to oblige us supposing for the present though not granting because it is not true that by refusing Christianity sufficiently proposed a man comes not under sin but onely comes not from under it but
who professe the true Christ Nor under the Law were granted but to those who professed the true God And for this cause they are called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. the manifestation of the Spirit because they manifest the presence of God in his Church As 1 Cor. XIV 22-25 hee saith that unbelievers seeing the secrets of their hearts revealed by those graces were moved to fall on their faces and worship God declaring that God is in his Church of a truth Those therefore who are thus witnessed by God upon his witnesse are to be received whatsoever they deliver in Gods name concerning either the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ For how can any man imagine that upon every new revelation declared by a Prophet upon every new letter written or act done by an Apostle a new evidence should be requisite to attest a new Commission from God Especially the presumption that God will not suffer his people to be abused by trusting him being necessary and not onely reasonable Since therefore our Lord and his Apostles carry this quality no lesse than did Moses and the Prophets it followes of necessity that their writings and what else they may have ordained are no lesse the Law of God no lesse obliging than the Law of Moses by virtue of their Commission which makes their acts in Gods name to be Gods acts Though civil Law they are not till civil Powers binde them upon their Subjects CHAP. IV. Neither the Dictate of Gods Spirit nor the authority of the Church is the reason of believing any thing in Christianity Whether the Church be before the Scripture or the Scripture before the Church The Scriptures contain not the Infallibility of the Church Nor the consent of all Christians IT is now time to proceed to the resolution of some part of those disputes and opinions which wee showed the world divided into upon occasion of the question how Controversies of Faith are to be tryed and ended That is to say so much of them as must be determined by him that will proceed in this dispute For supposing the premises to be true I shall not make any difficulty to conclude That neither the dictate of the Spirit of God to the Spirits of particular Christians that is the presumption of it nor the authority of the Church that is the presumption of the like dictate to any persons that may be thought to have power of obliging the Church is a competent reason to decide the meaning of the Scripture or any Controversie about mater of Faith obliging any man therefore to believe it And by consequence that the authority of the Church that is of persons authorized to give sentence in behalf of the Body of the Church here understood is not Infallible which if it were it must be without question admitted for a competent reason of believing all such sentences to be Infallibly true The truth of this Conclusion is demonstrated by the premises if any thing in a mater of this nature can be counted demonstrative If whatsoever the Spirit of God can be presumed to dictate to the Spirit of any Christian presupposeth the truth of Christianity as that which must try it whether onely a presumption or truth then can no mans word that professes Christianity be the reason why another man should believe For whosoever it is that gives the sentence by professing Christianity pretendeth to have a reason for what hee professeth which reason and not his judgment if it be good obligeth all Christians as well as him to believe For being once resolved that wee are obliged to believe whatsoever comes from those persons whom wee are convinced to believe that God imployed to declare his will to us Whatsoever is said to come from them must for the same reason be received and therefore by the same meanes said to come from them as it is said that they came from God On the other side whatsoever cannot by the same means be said to come from them can never by any means be said to come from God who hath given us no other means to know what hee would have us believe but those whom hee hath imployed on his message Wherefore seeing the authority of the Church supposeth the truth of Christianity of necessity it supposeth the reason for which whatsoever can be pretended to belong to Christianity is receivable Because supposing for the present though not granting that the Church is a Body which some persons by Gods appointment have authority to oblige it is manifest that no man can be vested with this authority but hee must bear the profession of a Christian and by consequence suppose the reasons upon which whatsoever belongs to the profession of a Christian is receivable For that which cannot be derived as for the evidence of it from those means by which wee stand convicted that Christianity stands upon true motives cannot be receivable as any part of it And therefore however the generality of this reason may obscure the evidence of it to them that take not the pains to consider it as it deserves yet the truth of it supposes no more than all use of reason supposes that all knowledg that is to be had proceeds upon something presupposed to be known In which case it would be very childish to consider that the Church is more ancient in time than the Scriptures at least than some part of them as the Writings of the Apostles for example in some sort then all Scriptures if wee understand the people of God and the Church to be the same thing For to passe by sor the present the Fathers before the Law as the people of Israel were Gods people by the Covenant of the Law before they received the Law written in the five Books of Moses So was the authority of Moses imployed by God to mediate that Covenant both good and sufficient before they by accepting the Law became Gods people And upon this authority alone and not upon any authority founded upon their being Gods people free and possessed of the Land of Promise to be ruled by themselves and their own Governors dependeth the credit of Moses and the Prophets Writings In like manner the being of the Church whether a Society and Corporation or not supposing the profession of Christianity and that the receiving of the Gospel which is the Covenant of Grace and that the authority of our Lord and his Apostles as sent by God to establish it Manifest it is that the credit of their Writings depends on nothing else but is supposed to the being of the Church whatsoever it is Which if it be so no lesse manifest it must be that nothing is receivable for truth in Christianity that cannot be evidenced to proceed from that authority that is more antient than the being of the Church as a truth declared by some act of that authority And therefore it would be childish to allege priority of time for the Church if perhaps
God delivered to the Church by the Apostles commanding them so to live For that which was as difficult as impossible to have been introduced without conviction of the will of God as the rest of Christianity of necessity must go for a part of it But that in such variety of mens fannies reasons and inclinations the Church consisting from the beginning of all Nations and dispersed all over the world should of their own inclination not swayed by any information of Gods will received with Christianity agree in the same Lawes and Rulers submitting to the exercise of the same Power upon themselves is as impossible as that the world should consist of the casual concurse of atomes according to Democritus and Epicurus The name of the Church without peradventure was first used to signifie the whole body of Gods people in the Wildernesse when they might be and were called together and assembled upon their common occasions which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies After which time the people continuing still one and the same by virtue of the same Lawes then received and the Powers placed in their Ruler Not onely the whole people but such parts of it as resorted to the same Government have still born and do bear the same name The Synagogue of Libertines Cyrenaeans Alexandrians Cilicians and Asians by example Acts VI. 9. which name first belongs to the respective Bodies of Jewes that subsisted at Rome Cyrene or Alexandria in Cilicia or Asia And consequently by Metonymy to the Places where such of those Bodies as chanced to be at Jerusalem might assemble themselves And to so many of those Bodies as being at Jerusalem did assemble at those Places Now no Christian can doubt that the Body of Christians succeeds in the stead of Gods ancient people And therefore the name of Gods Church when it stands without limitation signifies no lesse As when our Lord saith Mat. XVI 18. Vpon this rock will I found my Church Whatsoever the Disciples then conceived the Church should be our Lord that knew all by the name of it meant all that duly beares the name And therefore when hee saith once again Mat. XVIII 17. Tell it to the Church It is strange there should be Christians that should think hee means the Jewes and their Rulers And that the precept concernes Christians no longer now they have left the Jewes Though it is true a man cannot tell his cause to the whole Church but to that part of it to which hee can resort which is called by the name of the Whole as I said even now of the Synagogue S. Paul to the Colossians II. 24 25. calling the Church the Body of Christ saith That hee by the dispensation of God towards them which hee is trusted with is become the minister of the Church to wit as Angels are ministers of the Church because ministers of God towards it And therefore minister of the whole Church which is the Body of Christ not of any particular Church as if an Apostle could be bound to execute his office according to the discretion of any Church which for Gods cause hee attends As all Ministers are bound to execute their Office according to the will of them whose Ministers they are It is therefore the whole Church in which God hath set Apostles Evangelists Prophets and the use of the Graces rehearsed 1 Cor. XII 28. Eph. IV. 11. Because the Office of these Graces can by no means be confined either to any particular Church or to any part of the whole Church The name of the Church signifies the same thing again Eph. I. 22. III. 21. V. 23-32 While all Christendome was contained in the Church at Jerusalem the name of the Church is so used Acts II. 47. V. 11. VIII 1 3. that it is no mater whether wee understand by it the whole Church or the Church of Jerusalem The reason Because all right and power that can at any time be found vested in the whole Church was then as fully in the Church at Jerusalem as it can be at any time in the whole Church though in respect of a Body never so much greater than it As a childe is as much a man the day of his birth as the day of his death and a tree as much as a tree when it growes one as when it is come to the height But Christianity being propagated among Jewes and Gentiles as wee reade of the Churches of Judaea Samaria and Galilee Acts IX 31. and must needs understand the Epistles to the Ebrewes to have been written to Churches consisting onely of Ebrewes as those of S. Peter and that of S. James which mentions the Elders of the Church James V. 14. So the Churches of the Gentiles in S. Paul Rom. XVI 4. wee easily understand to be the Churches of Asia 1 Cor. XVI 9. Apoc. I. 11. the Churches of Galâ—â—ia 1 Cor. XVI 1. the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. VIII 1. and the rest that were visible in S. Paâ—ls time Now suppose for the present that these Churches mentioned by the Apostles were no more than so many Congregations as our Independents would have it Seeing they deny not so many Churches to be so many Bodies what reason can they give why the name of the Church when it stands for the whole Church should not signifie the like There is a prerogative attributed to the whole Church by S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 25. when hee calls it the base and pillar of Truth For that this should be said of any particular Church it were too ridiculous to imagine Can the Church bear this attribute if it be not capable of doing any act that may verifie it And if it be not a Body what act can it do In fine the correspondence between Gods ancient people and his new Israel according to his Spirit seems to require That as the Religion of the Jewes and not any Civil Power of the Nation makes them all one Body at this day in point of fact by sufferance of Soveraignes because they were once so in point of right So the Religion of Christians should make them one Body in point of right how many Bodies soever they are burst into in point of fact by their own wantonnesse For the Independents exception which I spoke of can be of no force unlesse they will make it appear that all those Churches that are mentioned in the writings of the Apostles did assemble in one place Not that if this could be made to appear they had done their businesse But because if it do not appear their plea is peremptorily barred Wee reade then of M M M soules added in one day to CXX of the Church at Jerusalem Acts I. 15. II. 41. To these were added or with these they became VM Acts IV. 4. To whom were added multitudes of men and women Acts II. 47. V. 14. These assembled daily in private to serve God as Christians as well as in
them hee is fain to argue very hard that their women ought their men ought not to be vailed at divine Service Concluding that if his reasons would not prevail the contentious must rest in this That wee have no such custome neither the Churches of God Why so if particular Churches be not tied to keep unity with the whole And by and by proposing another disorder in that they received not the Eucharist in commune poore and rich hee reproveth it as contrary to that which hee had delivered to them from the beginning Concluding that The rest will I set in order when I come So 2 Thess II. 25. Stand therefore brethren and hold fast the Traditions which yee have been taught either by word of mouth or by any letter of ours Neither can it be imagined that all Christians should be bound to heare the Apostles and not be bound to hold those things for Lawes to their conversation in maters of Religion which the Apostles should teach them to that purpose Of this nature is the decree at Jerusalem Acts XV. 20 28. that the then Churches of the Gentiles should abstain from things strangled and bloud as well as from fornication and the pollution of Idols For what is the ground or the purpose of it but to preserve them in unity with the Churches of Jews become Christians Of this nature is that blessing or Thanksgiving mentioned by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. 1 Tim. II. 1. being as I have showed in a Discourse of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church pag. 350-370 a form of Prayer or Thanksgiving delivered in substance by the Apostles for which the Sacrament of our Lords Supper hath been alwaies called the Eucharist because it is to be celebrated with it Of the same nature is tha order which S. James gives of praying for the sick anointing them with oile aswell for the forgivenesse of their sins as for the recovery of their bodily health James V. 14 15. Which I suppose no man will deny that it concernes all Churches alike If there be this evidence in the Scriptures for the beginnings of Church Law the practice of the Church from this beginning will afford much more Hee that would deny the Tradition of the Rule of Faith what will hee say to the Creed of the Apostles Not that I would have the words and syllables of it to containe whatsoever it is necessary for the salvation of a Christian to believe But because the Creed is not the words of the Creed but the sense and meaning of them together with that coherence and dependence of the parts thereof one upon and with another which the reasons and grounds of them inforce But first let it be understood that I make a difference between the Rule of Faith and the substance of Christianity Supposing Christianity to consist partly in mater of Faith partly in mater of maners Partly in things to be believed partly in things to be done though the Creed extend onely to mater of Faith There is nothing more evident in the practice of the whole Church before the world had admitted the profession of Christianity than this That there was a time allowed and required by the Church for those that professed themselves converted to believe the truth of Christianity to give trial of their conversation before they were admitted to Baptisme The Constitutions of the Apostles VIII 32. name three years but with this limitation that if any man demonstrate extraordinary zele to Christianity hee be received without so long trial Therefore if Clemens Alexandrinus require five it makes no difference For what marvail if several Churches at several times had several customes when as upon extraordinary occasions they were dispensable The Constitutions require extraordinary trial of those that had practised any sort of Magick judging by the experience of the times that it was hard to part with such superstitions It is enough for my purpose that during this time they might learn to behave themselves as Christians by conversing among Christians by coming to Church and bearing a part in the praises of God and hearing the Scriptures read and expounded And what is more notorious in the practice of the ancient Church than the difference between Missa Catechumenorum and Missa Fidelium Between that part of the Office of the Church which Pretenders to Christianity were admitted to or Hearers that is Scholars and Learners of it and that which was peculiar to Believers that is those that were Baptized and made Christians It is the designe of Clemens Alexandrinus his Paedagogus to show how the Word whether our Lord Christ or his Gospel is the Pedagogue of mankinde in bringing them to be Christians Not as wee mistake that word to signifie the Master of a School but as the fashion was then for men of quality to appoint a sonne a Governor to conduct him to School and home againe to attend on him at his exercises and upon all occasions to put him in minde how it might become him to behave himself and to report to his Father if hee proved untractable Thus hee maketh Pretenders to Christianity to be conducted by our Lord Christ and his Gospel in the conversation of Christians till they come to demand their Baptisme of the Church As it is manifest by the end of the Book where this Governor conducting his charge to the Church gives him up into his own hands so hee saith expresly as no more Governor of children but Master of men in the School of his Church Supposing then the point of maners and godly life to be part of the substance of Christianity it is evident that the Church alwaies acknowledged a certain Rule of Faith in that those who were thus prepared were alwaies taught their Creed that is required to repete it and heare it expounded by those whom the Church trusted for that purpose It is not my intent here to insist that the words of the Creed were delivered by the Apostles themselves or that the Rule of Baptisme delivered by our Lord in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not a sufficient Symbole or cognizance for a Christian For what is there necessary to the salvation of all Christians that is not contained in the profession of him that desires to be baptized into this Faith But it is enough for my present purpose that it was alwaies requisite that whosoever is baptized should be instructed upon what termes hee is to expect to be saved by Christ and that which all were required to professe for that purpose to be the Rule of Faith For whether it may appeare that this or that is of that nature must come to trial though the question be only of the sense of the Creed supposing that the very words were delivered by the Apostles themselves For example It is not possible to render a reason of the coming of Christ not mentioning the fall of Adam nor of that not
And yee shall be my Disciples And Luke XIV 26 27. Whoso cometh to 〈◊〉 and hatâ—th not father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters yea and himself cannot be my Disciple And whose taketh not up his Crosse and followeth â—ee cannot be my Disciple To the same purpose Mâ—â— X 38. XVI 24. Mark VIII 34. X. 21. Luke IX 23. And S. Paul plainly declareth the Galaâ—ians fallen from all benefit of the Gospel if to avoid the Crosse of Christ they should â—alk the profession of their Christianity to be circumcised Gâ—l V. 11. VI. 12 14. S. John charges the Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira Apoc. II. 14 15 20. to have some that hold the doctrine of Balaâ—m who taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel of things offered to Idols and Whâ—râ—dome which is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes And to suffer the woman Jâ—zabel calling her self a Prophetesse to teach and lead the servants of God into the error of whoredome and eating things sacrificed to Idols S. Peter 1 Pet. II. 15. and S. Jude 11. charge the Gnosticks whom they write against in those places that they go the way of Balaams that brought the Israelites to joyn with Bâ—â—l Peâ—r taking the invitation of their mistresses to the sacrifices of their Idols Whom Ireneus Justin the Martyr Origen Clâ—mons Alexandriâ—us and Tertulliâ—â— witnesse to have made the outward act of Idolatry in eating things sacrificed to Idols an indifferent thing that they might avoid persecution by complying with the Gentiles in that as with the Jewes in being circumcised And now after sixteen hundred yeares Wee are told that all that ever suffered for Christianity since the Apostles who were to witnesse what they saw our Lord doe and heard him say were mutinous sooles in laying down their lives to testifie that which they were not obliged to witnesse or rather which they were obliged not to witnesse the secular power requiting them not to witnesse it Wee have found one that calls himself a Christian wiser than our Lord and his Apostles as they called themselves Gnosticks because they pretended to know more than the Apostles that can tell Christians a way to escape the Crosse of Christ by renouncing Christianity and not fail of the promises thereof by believing the truth of it But they were the Disciples of Simon Magus and not of Christ that did so nor did they expect salvation by the Christianity which they counterseited but by that secret knowledg which they pretended to have discovered beyond that which all Christians had learned from the Apostles Though they went for Christians among the Gentiles who knew not what Christians were so that the Name of God was blasphemed because of them as the Apostle saith 1 Pet. II. 2. because their monstrous abominations were thought to be the practices of Christians Whether any man besides before this new Dogmatist pretending to be a Christian professed a freedom to renounce Christ in any case I am yet to learn Sure I am the Jewes under Antiochus Epiphanes died freely rather than eat Swines flesh or give any occasion to think that they fell from their Law and from God that gave it as the Prophet Daniel and his Fellowes had left them example to do And therefore by the same means and upon the same grounds for which wee receive our Christianity it stands evidenced to us that wee are bound to profess it that is to say by the Scriptures and the consent of all Christians that receive the Scriptures As for Traditions regulating the order to be observed in the communion of the Church there is so little question to be made of the consent of all Church writers that it shall serve my turn to produce the noted words of Tâ—rtullian de Cor. cap. III. Plaâ—â— nâ—gabimus traditionem recipiendam si nulla example prejudicent aliarum observationum quas sine ullius Scripturae instrumento solius traditionis titulo exinde consuetudinis patrocinio vindicamus Denique ut à baptismate ingrediar Aquam aditnri ibidem sed prius in Ecclesiâ sub Antistitis manu contest amur nos renunciare Diabolo pompae angelis ejus dehinc ter niergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quà m Domintes in Evangelio determinavit Indè suscepti lactis mellis concordiam praegustamus Exque eâ die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdomadam abstinemus Eucharistiae sacramentum in tempore victlus omnibus mandatum à Domino etiam antelucanis coetibus nec de aliorum manu quà m praesidentium sumimus Oblationes pro defunctis pro natalitiis annuâ die facimus Die dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare Eâdem immunitate à die Paschae ad Pentecosten usque gaudemus Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid in terram decuti anxiè patimur Ad omnem progressum atque promotum ad omnem aditum exitum ad vestitum ad calceatum ad lavacra ad mensas ad lumina ad cubilia ad sedilia quaecunque nos conversatio exercet frontem crucis signaculo terimus Plainly wee must deny to receive this Tradition if there be no examples of other observations for a prejudice which without any instrument in writing the onely title of Tradition and plea of Custome from it maintaineth In fine to begin with baptisme Going into the water not onely there but somewhat afore in the Church under the hand of our President wee take witnesse that wee renounce the Devil his pomp and Angels Then wee are drenched thrice answering somewhat more than our Lord in the Gospel hath limited Being taken up from thence wee fore-taste a mixture of milk and honey And from that day wee forbear our daily bathing all the week The Sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord commanded at the time of meat and all wee take also at our assemblies before day but at no mans hand but our Presidents Wee offer for those that dye and again upon the anniversary of their birth Wee count it unlawfull to fast or worship kneeling upon the Lords day The same privilege wee injoy from Easter to Whitsuntide Wee are troubled to have any thing even of our ordinary cup or bread scattered upon the earth At all going forth or advancing at all coming in and going out at putting on clothes or shooes at watching at lying or sitting down or to table at bringing in light whatsoever conversation wee exercise wee rub our foreheads with the sign of the Crosse I must here take notice of an exception to this authority of Tertullian that hee was a Montanist or inclining to the Montanists when hee writ it And marvail that prejudice in Religion should transport learned Christians so farre as to deny the records of the Church that credit which common sense allowes all records of historical truth and which all Learning allowes the writings of Mahumetans Jewes and Pagans And this consideration I interpose the
when wee see persons authorized in behalf of their particular Churches do an act which shall oblige those respective Churches For by the same reason persons authorized on behalf of all Churches shall be able to do an act that shall oblige all Churches Which is all that I claim when I maintain that by Gods Law all Churches are to make one Church When Matthias was Ordained an Apostle in stead of Judas I demand why that Assembly of Apostles and Disciples at which this was done should not be counted a General Council having showed that this Church of Jerusalem was then the whole Church and the creating of an Apostle whom all were to acknowledge in that quality for the future being an act concerning the Whole I will not say that the act of creating the seven Acts VI. concerned the whole Church being content that it remaine in question whether the intent of it were such or not But in as much as those that do not allow that they intended to create an Order of Deacons which all Churches were to make use of afterwards do not question that if they did intend it the whole Church must needs stand obliged by it I am not afraid to reckon this Assembly also in the rank of General Councils As for that of Acts XV. it appeareth sufficiently that those who founded the Church of Antiochia had their first commission from the Apostles not onely by the first preaching of the Gospel there and the sending of Barnabas Acts XI 19-26 but chiefly in that those which taught the necessity of observing Moses Law are disowned as having no commission so to teach Acts XV. 24. For as for S. Paul who challengeth an immediate commission from our Lord Gal. I. 1. it is easily granted because hee was made an Apostle Yet in that hee allegeth the verifying of it to S. Peter and S. James and the Churches of Judaea who having never seen his face glorified God for him Gal. I. 18-24 in that hee is brought by Barnabas who acted by commission from the Apostles to Antiochia and upon this beginning was sent by the Holy Ghost that is by Prophesie to do the office of an Apostle with Barnabas Acts XII 1 2 3. in that hee is owned by the Apostles afterwards Acts XV. 12. Gal. II. 1 7-10 which makes it more than probable that both these Texts speak of one and the same time of S. Pauls coming to Jerusalem in these regards I say it appeares sufficiently that the Church was to own him for an Apostle upon the owning his immediate calling from heaven by the rest of the Apostles Wherefore when wee see those that were trusted on behalf of the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which had been founded by those that were sent by the Holy Ghost from thence resort to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem for an end of the difference in debate well may I with those that have gone afore mee reckon this meeting among the General Councils the cause of it concerning the whole no part concerned that it obliged not I will not say so much of the meeting of S. Paul with S. James Acts XXI 18. though the Elders there mentioned are thought to be those that had the chief authority in the neighbouring Churches as well as in that of Jerusalem And though S. Paul by this time was become rhe Head of many more Churches of his own foundation than afore Because of the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles and the founding of other Churches by this time which could not be tied by the result of this meeting further than the mater of it was inforced by the decree formerly made of which among the Apostles there ought no doubt to be made Let no man expect that I inferre upon these premises that the Church is bound by a positive Law of God to call Councils and to decide all emergencies by the vote of them much lesse that it is not able to do this otherwise I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common service of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needes maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common service of God and the unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it but especially that profession which it supposeth But I intend not therefore to tye the Church to inflame persecution by holding such Assemblies as may give occasion of sinister suspicions to secular Powers that protect not Christianity when the effect of such Assemblies is to be obtained without assembling For whosoever they be that ought to be authorized in behalf of particular Churches to constitute a Council they can have no other authority than their respective Churches do challenge It cannot be imagined that being present in one place together and seeing one anothers faces can purchase them that authority which they cannot have at home to conclude the whole by the consent of the Council The presence of Representatives affords infinite opportunities of better information one from another by debate one with another which distance of place allowes not otherwise But yet in maters concerning the state of the Whole or any great part of it means of information for the maintenance of that confederacy wherein I maintain the Society of the Church to stand is to be had by daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives which wee call Councils A thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils is a way of farre greater dispatch but the expresse consent of Churches obtained upon the place is a more certain foundation of peace in regard of the many questions that may arise as well in the discharge of that trust which Representatives are charged with as in the respect allowed their votes by the Council As it may easily appear by the difficulties that have risen about executing the decrees of Councils And therefore the power of them is meerly derivâ—tive from their respective Churches tending to supply those difficulties of bringing the whole to agreement which distance of place createth That therefore which I allege here is this That the succession of Pastors alleged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceed wholey upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole Which is the true reason of
the visibility of the Church and the assurance that every particular Christian might have during this intelligence and correspondence that holding communion with his own Pastor hee held the true Faith together with the Unity of the Catholick Church Neither putting trust in man which God curseth nor in his own understanding for the sense of the Scriptures but trusting his own common sense as well for the means of conveying to him the mater as the motives of Christianity For why is it enough for Irenaeus and Tertullian for S. Augustine and Optatus to allege the Church of Rome and the succession from the Apostles for evidence that the Faith of those Hereticks was contrived by themselves that the Donatists were out of communion with the Church Because supposing that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord all communicated in the same Faith which they taught the Churches of their own founding other Churches founded and the Pastors of them constituted by the authority of those Churches must needs be founded and settled upon condition of maintaining and professing the same Faith So that if any Christian or Pastor should attempt the unsettling of any part thereof the people to stand bound rather to follow the original consent of the whole from whence they received their Christianity than any man that should forfeit his ingagement to the whole in the judgment of the whole This being the true ground for the authority of Councils might and did take effect without assembling of Councils S. Cyprian directs his leters to Steven Bishop of Rome to write to the Churches of Gaule to ordain a new Bishop in stead of Marcianus in the Church of Arles because hee had joyned with the Novatians To the Spanish Bishops owning the Deposing of Basilides and Martialis and the Ordaining of those whom they had put in their places notwithstanding that upon false suggestions they had gained Steven Bishop of Rome to maintain them Epist LXV LXVI Could any man in his right senses have attempted this had it not been received among Christians which hee alleges that the people of particular Churches are bound not to acknowledge those for their Pastors whom the communion of the Church disowneth whether assembled in Council or not The acts of Councils themselves such are the creation of a Bishop of Arles in stead of Marcianus of Spanish Bishops in stead of Basilides and Martialis depending upon the authority of the Churches of Rome and Carthage that concurred not to them in presence If this be imputed to any mistake of Gods appointment in the ancient Church it will be easie for mee to allege Tertullians reason to as good purpose against our Independent Congregations as hee used it against the Hereticks of his time For if the chief Power of the Church be vested in those that assemble to serve God at once without any obligation to the resolution of other Congregations then is the trust that a Christian can repose in the Church resolved into that confidence which hee hath of those seven with whom hee joyneth to make a Congregation that the ruling part of them cannot faile Or rathâ—r into that which hee hath of himself and of the Spirit of God guiding his choice to those that shall not faile They presuming themselves to have the Spirit of God without declaring what Christianity they professe for the condition upon which they obtain it need no provision of a Catholick Church to preserve that Faith which the Gift of the Holy Ghost supposeth God who requireth the profession of a true Faith in them upon whom hee bestoweth his Spirit hath provided the communion of his Church for a means to assure us of that which it preserveth That it is presumption in them to oversee this no imposture in the Church to challenge it Tertullians reason determines The Hereticks pleaded that the Churches had departed from the Faith which the Apostles had left them To this after other allegations hee sets his rest up on this one that error is infinite truth one and the same That no common sense will allow that to be a mistake in which all Christians agree They all agreed in the same Faith against those Hereticks because they all agreed in acknowledging the Catholick Church provided by God to preserve and propagate it against our Independent Congregations Thus Tertullian de Praescript XXVIII There have been some Disputers of Controversies that have claimed the benefit of Tertullians exception against the Hereticks of his time in behalf of the Church of Rome Hee pleadeth not that the Catholicks ought not but that they are not bound to admit them to dispute upon the Scriptures being able to condemne them without the Scriptures And they plead that the Reformation not standing to those Pastors whom they acknowledge to possesse the place of those that derived their authority by succession from the Apostles may be condemned without Scripture as not holding the truth who hold not that which is taught by the said Pastors Which is to demand of those of the Reformation for an end of all debates first to acknowledge those Pastors and that which they teach then to take that for the true meaning of the Scripture which that which they reach alloweth or requireth But this supposes the sentence of the Church to be an infallible ground for the truth of that which it determineth And therefore to be accepted with the same Faith as our common Christianity or the Scriptures Which I showed you already to be false It shall therefore suffice mee to say that those men consider not the difference between the plea of the Reformation and that of those Hereticks For they acknowledging our Lord Christ and his Apostles no otherwise than the Alcoran and Mahomet doth where they served their turn made no scruple to say when it was for their purpose that they knew not the depth of Gods minde which themselves by some secret way having attained to know were therefore called Gnosticks That they imparted not the utmost of their knowledge to all alike when that served their turne That therefore the Scriptures were unperfect and revealed not that secret whereby they promised their salvation but by incklings These things you shall finde in Tertullian de Praescript XXII and Irenaeus III. 1. as well as that plea which I mentioned afore that the Churches were fallen from that which they had received of the Apostles Whereas those of the Reformation allege against the Church of Rome that those Hereticks pretended Tradition as they do Without cause indeed For what is Tradition pretended to be delivered in secret to them and by them who tender no evidence for it to that which the visibility of Christianity and the grounds upon which it is settled justifieth But so as to make it appear that they no way disown the Apostles or their writings nor can expect salvation by any other meanes And therefore are manifestly to be tryed by the Scriptures acknowledged on both sides provided the trial
But hee that complaineth of that will be bound to advance some other meaning of those texts which may be free from contradiction both to the Rule of Faith and to Historical truth which common sense justifieth And yet admit no mention of publick Penance in the Church no intent to speak of it in all the Scriptures there alleged Which perhaps will be too hard to do Further I labor not I will suppose no man so wilfull as to dispute the right of excluding from the Communion of the Church granting a power of limiting the conditions upon which it is to be restored to them who forfeited it And this is visible It was but a mater of LXX years after the decease of S. John according to Eusebius his Chronicle that Montamis appeared to demand that Adulterers might not be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon Penance That those that had married the second time might not communicate That the rule of Fasting might be stricter than was in use That it might not be lawfull to fly from persecution for the Faith It is manifest that these were his pretenses by Tertullian that maintaines them being seduced with the opinion of inspirations and revelations granted him and his partizans to that purpose These pretenses were afterwards in part revived at Rome by Novatianus to get himself the Bishoprick there by excluding from Penance and reconciliation those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius It appeareth also that those men alleged for themselves the very passages of the Apostles which I allege to my intent Neither can it appear that ever any son of the Church did contradict them by saying that the Apostles meant nothing of Penance as they imagined And now let all men judge whether the Church have reason to hold this evidence of Penance and by consequence of its own being a Church Was Epiphanius and all that writ against the Novatians troubled to no purpose at the VI of the Ebrews when those Schismaticks alleging it for themselves might have been silenced by denying that it concerned Penance Why did not the Church allege that the sin unto death 1 John V. 17. is no such thing as Apostasy from Christianity when the Novatians alleged it to prove that Apostates were not to be reconciled to the Church How came it to passe that there was so much doubt made in the Church of Rome of admitting the Epistle to the Ebrews for Canonical Scripture witnesse S. Jerome Epist ad Dardanum as thinking that it did absolutely contradict the re-admitting of Apostates which had been practised in that Church before Montanus Tertullian of all men was troubled without cause that the incestuous person whom hee supposes to be excommunicated at Corinth by S. Pauls Order 1 Cor. V. should be re-admitted by his Indulgence 1 Cor. VII De Pudicitiâ cap. XIII XIV XV. because hee saw this was a peremptory exception against Montanus that a crime equal to Adultery should by S. Paul be admitted to Penance How easie a thing it had been for him to say that there is nothing of Penance nothing of Excommunication which Penance presupposes and therefore inferres in delivering to Satan the incestuous person in commanding them not so much as to eat with those that are called brethren that is Christians but are indeed such as the incestuous But hee being some fourteen hundred years nearer the beginning of Christianity than wee and being satisfied by his five senses of those things which new Heresies and Schismes oblige us to argue by consequences found that his Patriarch Montanus could not answer so And therefore thinking that the Church could not answer their arguments forces an answer to this by saying it was not the same man that is excommunicated by the Apostles Order 1 Cor. V. and restored by his Indulgence 2 Cor. VII Because hee saw the reconciling of a sinner to the Church by Penance as lively described and signified by S. Pauls Indulgence there as by any record of the Church at such time as it was most in use And can there remain any doubt of this Excommunication because the Church cannot now deliver to Satan for destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Surely all the writings of the Apostles do bear witnesse that the miraculous graces of the Holy Ghost which they had then but all Christians see the Church hath not now served not onely to witnesse the truth of Christianity but the authority of the Apostles in behalf of it This authority having taken effect by those Ordinances which the Church hath received at their hands It is no longer requisite that God should bear witnesse to his own Ordinances by such miraculous effects seeing hee doth no longer bear witnesse to the truth of Christianity by the like Hee that believes that whosoever is not in the Church is in the power of Satan needs no reason why hee is delivered to Satan that is put out of the Church Hee that believes it not is not to be perswaded that there is a power of Excommunication granted the Church But that the Christian saith which the Church preacheth is true for that without peradventure preached the Church At least till some body show us that this reason is insufficient hee must not demand that wee give an Article of our Creed and all the help to salvation which the communion of the Catholick Church pretendeth for such an objection as this Chuse now whether you will say as I say That under the Apostles difficulty was made of re-admitting some sorts of sins but never any peremptory order against it and so that Montanus and Novatianus were Schismaticks for seperating from the Church when the whole Church was agreed that there was a necessity of it or look about for a more reasonable sense to assoile the great difficulties of these passages Provided that you offer not violence to common sense and historical truth by imagining that so near the Apostles time there could be so much question about Penance they having neither meant nor ordained any thing about it To this argument all the most ancient records of the Church wheresoever mention is made of reconciling by Penance all the Penitential Canons of later ages will bear witnesse For who can undertake to answer or rather to obscure the evidence made in the place aforenamed that some sins were refused Penance and reconcilement in the first ages of the Church When wee have a whole book of Tertullian contending with Montannus to impose a Law upon it of re-admitting no Adulterers When wee know a whole sect of Novatians that left the Church that they might re-admit no Apostates As for the Penitential Canons of later ages it is manifest to any man that shall peruse and compare them with that which hath been said of the primitive times that they are nothing else but the abatement of that rigor of Discipline which during the primitive heat and zele of
unity of the Church which professed it Thus then writeth Irenaeus This preaching and this faith the Church having received as I said afore though dispersed all over the world carefully keepeth as if it inhabited one house And believeth these things alike as if it had one soule and one heart And harmoniously preacheth and teacheth and delivereth them as if it had but one mouth For there be divers languages in the world but the Tradition signifies the same Nor do the Churches seated in the Germanies believe or deliver otherwise nor those in the Spaines nor among the Gaules nor in the East nor in Aegypt nor in Africk nor those that are seated in the middle parts of the world But as the Creature of God the Sun is one and the same in all the world so shineth the preaching of the truth every where inlightning all men that will come to the knowledge of the truth And neither will any of those that Rule in the Churches though powerfull in speaking say things diverse from these for the Disciple is not above his Master nor hee that is weak in speech abate of that which is delivered For to the same Faith neither hee that is able to say much of it addeth nor hee that is able to say little abateth of it Hee that acknowledges this to be Gods doing must of necessity acknowledge the means of it the concurrence of all Churches to the maintainance of unity in the same Faith by disowning those that pretended to break it not left to mans will but injoyned by Gods And Irenaeus his instance in the Church of Rome serves to good purpose to make out this evidence For all Churches that is as Irenaeus sayes Christians of all Churches having necessarily recourse to Rome for all occasions because it was the seat of the Empire might there inform themselves and their Churches of the perverse doctrines that might be on foot and of the consent of the Churches in refusing the same In the next place I will not forget the relation of Epiphanius concerning Marcion in the beginning of his Heresie because it is next in time and of great consequence Hee being put out of the Church by his Father Bishop of Sinope in Pontus and making sure to be admitted by the Church of Rome received this answer That they could not do it without his Fathers consent because the Faith is one and the Unity the same Compare herewith the proceeding of Synesius against Andronicus Ep. LVIII LXXIX though so much distant in time which in the first book de Synedriis Judaeorum pag. 304. is said to be of a high strain Hee saith that if any Church neglecting his Church of Ptolomais as a poor Church being the Church of a small City shall receive to communion those whom it had excommunicated hee shall be thereby guilty of dividing the Church which Christ will have to be one And tell mee how this proceeding differs from that which in Marcions case Epiphanius sayes was done at Rome so near the Apostles Certainly if one Church should receive into communion those whom another Church excommunicates there could remaine no unity in the whole Church because no distinction from those that are not of the Church When therefore it appears that the Church held it for a Rule from the beginning not to do so shall not this be evidence that the reason is that which was alleged to Marcion at Rome which Synesius alleges To wit the Unity of the Church For the same reason Montanus having as it seems by pretended revelations and inspirations such as at that time there can be no question but the Church was graced with brought the Churches of Phrygia to his intent but being rejected by the Churches of Asia went or sent to Rome to induce that Church to undertake and prescribe the same Rules to all that adheered unto it For why otherwise should hee labor for the consent of that Church before others but in hope that having induced it to receive his Rules the authority thereof might induce other Churches to do the like because they found it necessary for them to hold correspondence with the Church of Rome Now I beseech you were all Christians utterly out of their five senses to contend about the communion of the Church if there were no such thing in point of fact Were they all from the beginning possest with a frenzy that they were bound to maintain it by voiding all questions that might impeach it if there were no such obligation in point of right Is it not plain that the issue of such questions was this whether the Unity of the Church or the advantage of such Rules to the common cause of Christianity wayed most How is Tertullian otherwise counted a Montanist that is as I suppose a Schismatick Wee may believe Tertullian in a mater which all Christians at Rome then might know when hee tells us that Zephyrinus then Bishop of Rome was about to admit unto his communion the Churches of Asia and Phrygia that had acknowledged Montarus and his Prophets and Prophesies Contr. Prax. cap. I. Though Pope Soter afore Zephyrinus had writ against Montanus as well as Apollonius Bishop of Ephesus if wee believe Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XXVI When hee sayes that afterwards the contrary was resolved upon informations brought from Asia by Praxeas an Heretick That which appears that the Montanists were disclaimed wee must admit That which appears not upon what information it was done wee need not dispute Tertullian hereupon drawes after him a company which called themselves a Church at Carthage and subsisted there after Tertullian till they were reduced by S. Augustine as wee learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus Haer. XCVII and S. Augustine de Haeresibus This makes Tertullian a Schismatick That rather than rest content with those Rules which the rest of the Church satisfied themselves with hee departed from the Unity of it Otherwise those blasphemies for which the followers of Montanus are counted Hereticks preferring their own revelations above and against those of the Apostles hee is not chargable with Proceed wee now to the businesse of keeping Easter and the debate about it between Victor Bishop of Rome and the Churches of Asia These resolutely adheering to the custome which in all appearance they had received from their founder S. John to keep the Passion when the Jewes kept it that is upon the fifteenth day of the Moon that was the next equinoctial and the Resurrection the third after that The Church of Rome and almost all Churches beside keeping thc Passion on the Friday the Resurrection on the Ladies day following The one aiming at winning the Jewes when it was first set on foot the other to protest against them as incorrigible It is well enough known how Victor intending to withdraw his Communion from the Churches of Asia was reduced to tolerate them by the perswasions of Irenaeus then Bishop of Lions Certainly had not the Communion of the
Church been in possession and practice at that time the Bishop of Rome had been a mad man to think that refusing it would be the means to reduce those of Asia to his judgment and practice If this possession and practice had no ground of right is it possible that none of either party should discover the sandy foundation of the dispute and perswade the parties which were so much in love with their own way on both sides to give no heed to other Churches the Communion of the Church having no ground and therefore being of no consequence What meant Irenaeus so to trouble himself to perswade Victor to hold communion with those of Asia though not condescending to keep Easter by the same Rule but that hee saw if the Church of Rome should break with the Churches of Asia that hee must break either with the one or the other of them who desired to hold communion with both Were the Disciples of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples cousened into a humane Tradition of the Unity of the Catholick and Apostolick Church when hee so earnestly labored that holding with the Church of Rome hee might not be constrained to forbear the intercourse which for the advancement of Christianity hee held with the Churches of Asia But S. Cyprians time affordes divers passages of great consequence The Schisme of the Novatians in the first place It is a thing manifest by Eusebius his Histories VI. 44 46. VII 4 5. that the Church of Antiochia together with the Churches of Pontus which then seem to have either resorted to Antiochia or in consideration of neighborhood to have held great correspondence with that Church and Cilicia made very great difficulty in admitting the election of Cornelius and condemning the Novatians for refusing to receive into communion those who in time of persecution had sacrificed to Idols and so renounced the Christian Faith In time by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria moved it seems with the consent of the rest of the Church they were also induced to disclaime the Novatians and to concurr to restore the Unity of the Church which for the time had remained in suspense And it is a thing very much to be observed which the Council at Antiochia in Encoeniis Dominicae aureae pleads to the Church of Rome in the dispute they had with Pope Julius about admitting the Acts of it in Sozomenus III. 8. and Socrates II. 5. They had taken upon them to make a new provision in that which the great Council at Nicaea had taken order in afore Which was in effect to make void the acts of that Council The Pope I suppose had reason to except that this could not be done without his consent including in it the consent of the Churches which adheered to him unlesse wee imagine that the Synod of Antiochia being but a part of those who had decreed at the Council of Nicaea had power to dissolve the acts of the whole What is it then toat this Synod allege for themselves Even this That having preserved or restored the Unity of the Church of Rome by disclaiming the Novatians they expected the like compliance from them in the present businesse Whereby it appeareth that the consent of the whole Church did make and was to make good the acts of part of it though not assembled with them in Council no lesse than if they were And indeed what made the second general Council of Constantinople under Theodosius to be general none having appeared at it for the Western Churches but the consent of Damasus and his Synod ex postfacto the rest of the West adheering to the same Which if it be so I do not think I need any other evidence that from S. Cyprians time all Christians did believe that they are bound to maintain themselves in communion with the Church when they believe that the consent thereof is able to do such acts as these I cannot here omit the words of Dionysius of Alexandria out of a leter to Novatianus recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist VII 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you were carried away against your will as you say you may show that by returning with your will For you should have indured any thing rather than smite asunder the Church of God And to suffer martyrdome rather than divide the Church had been no lesse glory than rather than commit Idolatry but greater in my judgmene For there a man suffers martyrdome for his own soul alone but here for the whole Church And now if you can perswade or constraine the brethren to return to concord your fall will not be so great as that exploit But if they will not be ruled and you cannot by all means save your own soul It is easie to observe that the same Churches which had made so much difficulty in disclaiming the Novatians were they who joyned with S. Cyprian in standing upon the rebaptizing of those that had been baptized by Hereticks As appeares not only by Firmilianus his Epistle to S. Cyprian but also by Dionysius of Alexandria de bapt III. alleged by Euscbius VII 7. even before S. Cyprian Whereby wee see how much Eusebius contradicts himself when hee sayes VII 3. that S. Cyprian was the first that called in question the Tradition received in that case In this businesse the XIX Canon of the Council of Nicaea makes it evident that neither S. Cyprians party nor their adversaries altogether prevailed For it is there inacted That those who had been baptized by the Samosatenians should be baptized again And must not the same needs hold much more of the Gnosticks and of almost all the rest of those Heresies which S. Cyprian nameth in his LXX Epistle Besides it is manifest by the second Council at Arles can XVII that of Laodicea can VII VIII Gennadius de dogm Eccl. cap. LII and others that the practice of the Churches after this dispute was ended was not every where the same And which is most remarkable Not onely the great Council at Arles Can. VIII makes a Rule for the Africane Churches which the first Council at Carthage followeth to the like purpose with that of the Council of Nicaea But also Optatus lib. I. demonstrates that hee rebaptized the Sabellians which the foresaid Rule alloweth not Whereby it appeareth that the extream opinions held by Steven of Rome that none were to be rebaptized and by S. Cyprian that all were moderated by the succeeding practice of the Churches though diverse in divers parts of the Church Now let mee ask by what means this moderation came to prevaile over that vehemence of contention which you may see the parties transported with in S. Cyprians Epistles What could it be but the conscience of that obligation which both parties owned to preserve the Unity of the Church and the respect of those other Churches that were not ingaged in the dispute as they were The businesse of Paulus Samosatenus is of the same time Was
is Soveraign inact it By consequence must needs deny that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church whose office was onely to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State which therefore when it is Christian is called the Church of such a Kingdome Though hee acknowledge also that before the Empire was Christian the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scriptures the Church of such or such a City pag. 275 But denying that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey because they are lyable to other Powers of this world according to the States of which they are pag. 248. and before pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loosing very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins But so that supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not or to binde them that do and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes because they may be counterfeit And this Power as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church Mat. XVIII 16. when hee saith Tell the Church So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11 12 and 3 4 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the incestuous persons and other finners to be in the Congregation reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people but when S. Paul writ the Body of Christians in such or such a City pag. 275. In like maner the appointing of Persons either to officiate the Service of God or to wait upon the necessities of the Church hee also gives unto the Church that is then to the respective Bodies of Christians but now to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it But the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands as to the Apostles for their time so to the worlds end to their Successors For thus were Maâ—thias Paul and Barnabas made Apostles Act. I. 15 23. XIV 1 2 3. XIV 14. Thus the seven Deacons thus the Elders of Churches were constituted Acts VI. 3. XIV 23. the Congregation chusing the Apostles declaring the choice as in binding and loosing As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law For how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons that is not bound to be a Christian But that Tithes under the Law were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people having made God their Soveraign by their Covenant with him in which right Moses and Aaeron and the High Priests that succeeded him were but his Lieutenants so that when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings it held meerly by their sufferance this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church by determining Controversies of Faith and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture call it what you please as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians It had been a necessary consequence of this opinion that as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to decree so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church a Right to declare publish or pronounce the same as in Excommunicating and Ordaining hee doth For which hee hath found no ground no pretense in the Scriptures Besides whereas by the Act of the Apostles laying a burden upon believers Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors practising the holding of Councils which common sense would make ridiculous if they had no effect upon the Church hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves though not the Church It will be impossible for him to render a reason either why this power should cease or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian and all right in the Church is resolved into it I must not leave this point before I have taken notice of one presumption wherein both these Authors seem to agree For the Leviathan in several places pag. 285 286 282 205 206 322. taketh for granted that there is no Law in the world but the Law of Nature and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths And therefore that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil must indow it both with right and means to constrain men to obey it and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church in as much as all Christians even Soveraignes are members of it Which to avoid it is necessary to grant that the Church is nothing else but a Christian Commonwealth and the Clergy ministers of the Soveraign Power deriving all their authority from it pag. 209 249 296. In like maner the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum in defining Excommunication pag. 105. takes it for granted that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommunicate in regard of his reputation of freedom changed and abated by it Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power as is able by outward force to constrain obedience For otherwise the estate of no man that is protected in all right by the Civil Power could be changed or abated by it Accordingly in several places hee presumes that those who maintain the Power of the Church and the right of Excommunicating which is a prime part of it to stand by Gods Law are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world in Ordine ad spiritualia And hereupon follow the reasons whereby these Authors have disputed the one à priori that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes in as much as a Power not depending upon them may lawfully be used against them by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force The other à posteriori from the practice of all Christian States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes Who by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done or pretended to inforce by Excommunication have
Ecclesiastical may be from God though limitable by the Secular hitherto this is evidence As for the holding of Councils I mervail to see this Doctor so securely to dream that the calling of them all belongs onely to the State and that it were an usurpation in the Church to hold any but by commission from it For hee is not ignorant how many Synods were held by the Church afore Constantine and that upon the same right as those meetings of the Apostles which I have showed had the power and force of General Councils without asking leave either of Jewes or Romanes Which is enough for the present purpose to infringe the argument made by this Doctor in the former part of his book Not that there is no Church but that there can be none where there is a State Wherein hee out-vieth the first book de Synedriis his Master who having granted that the Excommunications of Christians were taken up by the voluntary consent of Churches hath by consequenâ—e granted that the Church was a Church that is a Corporation before Constantine And therefore I referr the consideration of the time after Constantine till I speak of the bounds of Ecclesiastical and Civil Power in Church maters Where it will as easily appear as it is easie to look into any record of the Church that the holding of Synods was a mater of course and Canon and custome allowed indeed by the Empire but constituted and limited by the Church Not because the State might not have forbid them Had they gone beyond the bounds of that right which the constitution of the Church establisheth justly unjustly if they had not So that the power of forbidding to be just the use of it unjust But that the Church was yet unacquainted with the motives of transgressing those bounds and so the State had no just cause to interpose Of General Councils I say not the same Not as if the Church afore Constantine had usurped a right not due had it assembled by representatives in a General Council But whether such assemblies were forborn as mater of more jealousie to the State than either ordinary meetings for the service of God or Synods Or of more charge to the Church It must be acknowledged that the first General Council of Nicaea could not have been assembled without the command as well as the charge of Constantine That other General Councils were never assembled without the concurrence of the chief Powers of Christendome That every Soveraign hath a Power to command the presence of every subject where and when hee shall please And that Constantius when hee constrained the Council of Ariminum to sit against their will to the prejudice of the respective Churches on purpose by this duresse and the opportunities of time to bring them to his will abused his Power indeed but usurped it not For if the constitution of the Church be no ground for any temporal Right then can no quality in the Church exempt any man from the service which as a member of the Common-wealth hee owes his Soveraign But whether they acted by commission from Constantius or by the quality they held in the Church the successe of his designe witnesseth For as I have showed you that without being assembled they had both right obliging them and means inabling them to maintaine the Faith by mutual intelligence and correspondence So being assembled alters nothing in the case saving the opportunity it giveth to imploy their right to that end which their quality pretendeth Their assembling upon his command signifying no trust which they undertook to him prejudicial to that which their quality in the Church importeth Having said this in general to that general Argnment upon which this Doctor pretends to build his opinion I am content to turn my Reader loose to him provided hee be content to consider also that which shall be found requisite to be said when I have done with his two predecessors CHAP. XII That the Law expersly covenanted for the Land of Promise A great Objection against this from the Great precept of the Law The hope of the world to come under the Law and the obedience which it requireth was grounded upon reason from the true God the Tradition of the Fathers and the Doctrine of the Prophets The Love of God above all by the Law extendeth no further than the precepts of the Law the love of our Neighbor onely to Jewes Of the Ceremonial Judicial and Moral Law SO much difference as there is between these two or these three opinions and the reasons upon which they proceed it is manifest that the issue and pretense of all is the same That there is no such thing as a Church Understanding by that name a Visible Society or Corporation of all Christian people subsisting or that ought to subsist by a Charter from God one and the same from the first to the second coming of Christ Which therefore remaines distinct from all States and Soveraignties that professe Christianity by the Rights upon which it subsists though the persons of which both consist may be the same if it so fall out that Christianity be professed by all the Soveraign Powers under which there are Christians But that is the reason why I am forced to quote both Authors and Opinions by name which in other points I shall avoid Not onely because I would be as short in this abridgment as my designe will bear But because nothing seemes to mee more odious or further from the profession of a Christian than the affectation of contradicting the opinions of men in repute for Learning which therefore I would have avoided by silencing the names of these had I not found so much difference in the means from which they would inferre the same consequence And truly the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in making the question general that is general indeed and giving that resolution of all the branches of it without which whatsoever is said to some parts of it leaves the whole unresolved while any part so remaines Those that onely dispute the power of Excommunication are neverthelesse to give account what Right the Secular Power can have to appoint the Persons that shall either determine or execute maters of Religion to decide Controversies of Faith to minister the Sacraments which they may do themselves by much better Title than by their Deputies than if they resolved and maintained all this as expresly as the Leviathan hath done It may be indeed hee hath made his resolution more subject to be contradicted by so freely and generously declaring it But whosoever shall undertake the same pretense will stand no lesse obliged to God and to his Church to give account how every part of that Power which as well before as since Constantine hath been exercised by the Church should henceforth be exercised by Secular Powers without prejudice to Christianity before hee go about to void it Though hee give not the truth so much advantage against
in propagating of it which are not against Gods Law but according to it As for the Apostles of our Lord Christ all whose acts done with intent to oblige the Church are of force by Gods act of establishing them all that can remaine questionable is with what intent they introduced their Ordinances into the Church which are unquestionably of force by Gods Law for whatsoever they intended whatsoever the Synagogue might intend by the like As for that voluntary conjecture of pag. 315. which makes the XII Apostles created with Power of Binding and Loosing so many Elders to declare what was lawfull and unlawful in Christianity I admit all understood according to the premises To wit that as there was in those Elders which the Synagogue created a Power to declare what was lawful or unlawful by the Law of Moses to make a man capable or uncapable of the society of that people to which those promises were made but in every one as his creation limited So were the Apostles ordained by our Lord to declare to the world upon what termes it might be reconciled to God and obtaine everlasting life And those whom they prevailed not with they are therefore said to binde because they loosed them not And as they held this Power in chief and fully to all purposes So all that claime any part of it under them must claime no more than the act by which they conveyed it upon them may appear to have limited But it were too great an impertinence to imagine that this power depended any way upon that authority which the Law might allow or constitute even in our Lord Christ supposing him a Prophet acknowledged according to the Law otherwise then as the Gospel depends upon the Law and the Church upon the Synagogue in that they give evidence to them by which they are made void For that which our Lord gives his Apostles is more then the Law was ever able to effect if the premises be true though the Law gave competent witness and evidence to it Neither is there any more force in that which is conjectured in the same place that the VII who are created to wait upon the Tables or common Diet of the Christians at Jerusalem Acts VI. are also so many Elders because made by Imposing hands For if it be the authority of the Apostles that made Imposition of hands in force to Christians though they had a pattern from the Synagogue to move them to introduce it who shall limit them not to use it unlesse they be Elders whom they ordaine and therefore who shall conclude that they are Elders because so ordained If these things be true it will be easie to resolve the consequence of that supposition which is propounded in the Preface to that Book To wit supposing the Jewes in the Land of Promise had received Christianity at the Preaching of the Apostles as they ought to have done and so that their Estate had continued as it did which for refusing it was taken away whether the Civil Law of that people continuing as it ought to continue should have had the same Power in Ecclesiastical causes as it had in ordering all things that concerned the Ceremonial Law For if so then no Ecclesiastical Power could have subsisted among the Jewes and therefore no cause could be alleged why other Nations im̄bracing Christianity should not reserve the same Power to their own Civīl Law For supposing the Covenant under Moses to be no more in force at such time as the New is on foot which the Preaching of the Apostles had declared to be the intent of the Old at such time as Christ should come it will follow indeed that the reason why the Nation was taken away that is the refusal of the Gospel ceasing God might have preserved them in Estate had hee pleased but by the termes of the Covenant which was expired could not be tied to it But supposing hee had preserved them so wee must then suppose that the Civil Law of Moses ought to be still maintained among that people not by the Covenant which being expired and the condition of the Land of Promise holding no longer when the taking up of Christs Crosse is propounded and admitted by receiving Christianity the obligation of maintaining the same Civil Law can no further hold than the reason of maintaining Christianity should require That is So farr as the quiet of that people in the privileges which till then they injoyed would evidently have been for the advancement and maintenance of Christianity and the preserving of the Lawes which they were alwaies tied to as evidently for the quiet of that people For suppose at this hour a Synagogue of Jewes in the Empire or in Italy or wheresoever else they subsist should receive Christianity Neither would any obligation of the Law remain upon them why they should not give it all over to become free denizens of the States in which they dwelt afore their conversion which is that as I suppose that Christian States ought to propose to them to move them to imbrace Christianity neither is there any thing to difference their case now from those of our Lords time that injoyed so much of their own Lawes in the hand of Promise And supposing that God had been pleased to preserve them in that estate wee must also suppose that God intending his Church as well of the Gentiles as Jewes intended both to make parts of it upon the same termes And therefore that Power which the Apostles left for the preserving of unity in the communion of the service of God for which the Society of the Church stands that as well Jewes as Gentiles must have admitted as a part of the Christianity which they professed bounding the force of their own Civil Laws upon the same Terms as wee show the Civil Lawes of other Nations that received Christianity are to be bounded with in Church maters CHAP. XVI The Church founded upon the Power given the Apostles What is the subject mater of Church Lawes The right of the Church to Tithes and Oblations is not grounded upon the Law though evidenced by it and by practice of the Patriarchs Evidence of the Apostles Order in the Scriptures The Church of Jerusalem held not community of Goods The original practice of the Church HAving thus farre showed the foundation of Ecclesiastical Power in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ whom wee may justly affirm to have been the Church materially as so many Christians but in virtue and force as much as the whole Church can ever be it will not be requisite to those that consider things a right to argue that their Acts and Ordinances must of necessity have the force of Gods Lawes to the Church as much as those things which God said alone to Moses in the Tabernacle of Assembling had the force of Lawes to his ancient people For those that consider the beginnings of States from the beginning of the World shall
poor that for the necessities of the world they might not neglect the Osfices of Christianity And this necessity necessarily imported in the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel between the Synagogue and the Church but evidenced by the practice of all ages of the Church to be the effect of the first order given out and established in the Church by the Apostles The first order that wee finde mentioned by the Acts of the Apostles to have been held in the primitive Church of Jerusalem mentioneth expresly onely the provision for the poor But it is in the first place to be remembred that the Apostles had long afore told our Lord Behold wee have left all things to follow thee And if as it is said there Acts IV. 35. Distribution was made to every one as they had need If their Oblations were laid at the Apostles feet to signifie that they were put into their power to dispose of as they should think fit if the seven men whom they ordained to attend upon that Office Acts VI. were trusted under them and by them then is it necessary to conceive that themselves were in the first place provided for by those Oblations It will presently be said That at that time the Christians imposed upon themselves a Law to make all estates common that all might live upon all that every one had As hath been granted to the Anabaptists Denying neverthelesse that it was a Law necessarily obliging all Christians but an order which which they took up voluntarily as being convinced that it was for the advancement of Christianity at that time And S. Basil it is plain supposeth that they all renounced their estates as Monks did afterwards Otherwise hee could not have inferred the duty of Monks from this example as in the beginning of his short Rules hee doth Besides wee have Grotius his conjecture that those Christians took up the Rule of those Essenes which were married For besides the Pharisees and Sadduces whom the Lord in his Gospel so deeply condemneth there was a third Sect of religious people among the Jewes called Essens whereof though some lived continent some in marriage yet both renouncing the property of their goods contributed all to the maintenance of the community into which they betook themselves And these being no where reproved by our Lord hee conceiveth the Church of Jerusalem then consisted most of and therefore their order received by the Church as easily as introduced by the Apostles But all this is in vain onely that S. Basils argument stands upon a consequence the validity whereof must be disputed in due place that if bare Christians did voluntarily part with their goods in that estate much more are those that take upon them the profession of Monastical life bound to do the same For nothing can be more evident than this That no man was bound by any rule common to the whole Body to bring in his goods but every man brought in voluntarily what his heart prompted him to part with all being satisfied that they were to bring in what the maintenance of the Church in that estate should require At least if wee believe S. Peter telling Ananias Acts V. 4. Did it not remain thine owne while so it remained And being sold was it not at thy disposing Which could not have been said had hee been tied to dispose of it otherwise And Acts V. 33 34 how it is said that they had all things common Acts II. 44. is thus expounded That there was great grace upon the believers for neither did any of them want because as many of them as had houses and Lands sold them and brought the prices of the things they had sold and laid them at the Apostles feet Neither could it have been any particular commendation for Barnabas which for his particular commendation followes there that hee having a land did the like with it Therefore neither did they professe the communion of Monks who were married nor of Essenes who were tied to no more than other Christians to contribute of their estate whatsoever the maintenance of the Church should require but did contribute whole estates or parts of estates as God moved them to do that which they were not bound in that measure to do Not was it any thing but not judging of that primitive estate of Christianity by that which was afterwards practised though in an inferior degree that moved men to grant the Anabaptists more than is true that they were under the Law of community of goods But I will not here repeat those texts of Scripture which I have produced nor the arguments which I have made for the true sense of them and the consequences drawn in the Right of the Church pag. 200-220 which I suppose to remaine in force till some body will show mee that they are not Onely I will particularly stand upon it that there is no answer for S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 3 8 9 16 17. Where the widowes that are so indeed are to be honored with a Pension The Presbyters that rule well especially if they labor in the Word and Doctrine with a double one Is Timothy commanded to see this done and no stock provided out of which hee might do it Why then doth hee not ask the question Where is the money to do it with If any Christian man or woman have widowes of their near kindred let them maintaine them and let not the Church be charged For they that take not care for their owne have denied the Faith and are worse than Infidels And how shall the Church be charged if it have no stock nor none bound to have Therefore I suppose I have given a good reason that S. Peter when hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. V. 3. forbids the Presbyters to domineer over the inferior Clergy whose Pensions were to come by their allowance For those Pensions being allotted to their several Offices are most properly called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore in Clemens Alexandrinus his relation of S. John reported by Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to make some one of the Clergy And Cornelius of Novatianus in the same Eusebius VI. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because it was not lawfull for him that had been baptized in bed for feare of suffering for his Christianity which to avoid baptisme was deferred till danger of death to come to any place in the Clergy And I may well take up again here that which I alleged afore of S. John commending Gaius for intertaining those brethren whom Diotrephes would not suffer the Church to intertain And of S. Paul commanding Titus to send away Zenas and Apollos with care that they wanted nothing For the same question will be fit to be asked where they should have money to do it did not S. Paul or S. John suppose a stock of the Church provided to do it with If this kinde of evidence had been used it would have been
before acknowledges as a Christian that right which Christians acknowledge of holding Land and Goods to be in the Church For when wee reade afore in any records of the Church where the persecution of Diocletian is mentioned as in Eusebius Eccles Hist IX 9. that Churches and Oratories were pulled down and the books of the Scriptures burned were not these Churches and Oratories and Books the common goods of the Church dedicated to the service of God but given the Church for the purpose of it When Constantine writ that famous letter to Eusebius to provide fifty Copies of the Bible was it not to furnish the Churches which hee had erected at Constantinople There is nothing more ancient in the records of the Church than the mention of Titles and Coemiteries belonging to the Church at Rome nor any thing more effectual to convince this intent than the name and condition of the same The maner was at Rome to set marks upon eschetes and confiscations and all other goods belonging to the Exchequer whether moveable or immoveable intimating that the Exchequet claimed them and that no man was to meddle with that Title for so it was called And truly the same was the reason why they set a bodily mark upon souldiers to signifie them to be the Emperors men as private men did on their goods which occasioned the allegory of the character of Baptisme the reason whereof S. Austine by that comparison declares When therefore a piece of ground or a house was given the Church to exercise their Assemblies in the name of Title evidences that a mark was set upon it whether a Crosse as Cardinal Baronius would have it whether visible to the world or onely to those of the Church I dispute not now to distinguish the Churches goods from the goods of private persons And therefore what can be more clear than that the Church had goods In the life of Alexander Severus you have a question about a certain place challenged on one side by the Christians on the other by the Taverners popinariis whom with the like hee had made Corporations as the same Life relateth decreed by him in favor of Christians It will perhaps be said that it is enough to justifie those that have seized the goods of this Church that the Tenth part and those kindes of which it is to be payed are not determined by Gods Law For if it be once granted that the act of man is requisite to designe what hee will please to indow the Church with That the act of Soveraign Power is requisite to make such or such or all kindes Tithable through each State it will be in the Soveraigne Power either to recall its own act or to limit or void the acts of particular persons To this my answer shall be That all this dispute proceeds upon a supposition that the men are Christians to whom it addresseth Seeing then it is a part of Christianity to acknowledge the Church a Corporation founded by God and so capable of rights as well as of goods Whatsoever by any mans voluntary act it stands indowed with as the Church of England is with all Tithes some man may have force no man can have right to take from it But I have showed further that all Christians whether publick or private persons are bound to indow the Church with the First-fruits of their goods Of which First-fruits the Tenth hath been the part most eminently limited under the Lawes of Nature Moses and Christ Therefore the persons whereof a Commonwealth consisteth may be Christians in giving their goods as the necessity of the Church requires but the Commonwealth it self cannot be Christian but by securing such Christian acts from violence Which if it be true so farre must any State be from seizing such goods that the first thought thought should be to restore the breach made upon Christianity by such feizures For the intent of consecrating First-fruits and Oblations whether presently to be spent or to make a standing stock to the maintenance of one Communion and corporation of the Church is evidenced by the same means as our common Christianity That is by the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of Ghristians And therefore supposing Christian States were mistaken in accepting the Obligation of Tithes as from the Levitical Law they were not mistaken either in their duty to indow the Church or in limiting the Tith for the discharge of it suppoâ—ing it necessary that all being become Christians the rate should be limited and that the Tenth whether alone or with other consecrations might serve the turne And therefore there can be no difference between the Churches goods that is Gods and private mens but the difference between mans Law onely and Gods and mans Law both speaking of those Churches upon which mans Law hath once settled that which private or publick devotion hath once consecrated to God For consider that there is neither Kingdome nor State to be named before the Reformation that ever undertook to maintain that Christianity which it professed wherein there hath not been a course taken to settle Goods consecrated to God upon his Church for the maintenance of Gods service that it might not lye at the casuality of Christians behaving themselves as Christians should do whether the service of God should be maintained or not For though while no man was a Christian but hee that had resolved to undergo persecution to death for the profession of Christianity it was not to be doubted that hee who had given himself up to the Church would not stick at giving up his goods so farre as the necessities thereof should require Yet when all the world was come into the Church whether for love of God or of the World that favored the Church what disorder might have insued had not a standing provision been made it is obvious to common reason to imagine Or rather what disorder did insue for want of it it is evident by the provisions of the Civil Law of all Christian Kingdoms and States that proved requistie to prevent it for the future Whether or no the Tenth part were due by virtue of the Levitical Law seeing it appeareth by that which hath been said that from the beginning of Christianity a stock of maintenance was due to the Church out of the First-fruits of Christians goods offered and dedicated to God whereof Tithes were from the Law of Nature before Moses one kinde They might be bad Divines in deriving the Churches Title from the Levitical Law who had not been good Christians had they not discharged themselves to it But they can be neither good Divines nor good Christians that discharge the Church of the rights so purchased to it Alwayes this being the course of maintaining the Church from the beginning the evidence for the corporation of the Church is the same with the evidence for our common Christianity To wit the Scriptures with the consent of all Christians to limit the meaning of it
And therefore as every Church is a Body by it self and all Churches notwithstanding bound to make one Body by visible communion one with another which Body is the Catholick Church So is this common stock of the Church provided for the maintenance first of that Church whose it is then of the whole Church by defraying the charge of those correspondences whereby the unity thereof is intertained In the place afore-quoted out of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State you shall finde those Scriptures alleged which speak of the Collections of other Churches for the maintenance of the Church of Jerusalem the then Mother Church of all Churches And in this Book afore Chap. X. you have evidence that the correspondence between all Churches by which the communion of all was to be maintained was instituted and set on foot by the Apostles You have therefore evidence that such a stock was requisite even in regard of correspondence between several Churches when you see upon what businesse it was spent Whether this correspondence were exercised in holding of Councils or by dayly intercourse and intelligence the case was alwaies the same as at the Council at Ariminum where the Fathers complained that they were detained against their will as to the great charge of them who were to maintaine their Representatives there And if my memory faile not the British Bishops particularly in Sulpitius Severus that their Churches were not able to maintaine them there at the charge which was requisite For Constantine indeed at the Council of Nicaea had furnished not onely the wagons of the Exchequer to convey them to the place but also the greatest part if not their whole charge during the action But his son intending by duresse to constrain them to decree that which hee intended because hee knew that if they decreed it not his authority would be of no more effect to induce the Church to receive it than the Heathen Emperors had been to induce it to renounce Christianity using his Soveraign Power in commanding his subjects to assemble and continue assembled layed for a further burthen and duresse upon them to continue their at their own charge that is at the charge of their Churches I will conclude with a memorable passage of S. Gregory Nazianzens in Julianum I. where hee tells us that among other designes os the Apostate to extinguish Christianity one was to bring the Lawes of the Church into use among the Gentiles as the means to propagate and maintain their Idolatry which was visibly the means to propagate and maintain Christianity Indeed it is a testimony that concerneth all parts of Church Law and evidences all the parts of Ecclesiastical Power that I have insisted upon But because it mentioneth partly the erecting of Hospitals for the correspondence of Christians I have put it here in the last place where I allege the practice of the Church for the corporation of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee was ready to set up Auditories in stead of Churches in every City and Presidents of higher and lower States readings and expositions of the doctrines of the Gentiles both which compose mens manners and the more abstruse Also in part the forme of Prayers and censuring of sinners according to their measure Of Catechizing also and Baptizing and other things which manifestly belong to the good order that is among us Besides to found Hospitals to intertain strangers and convents of Virgins and Monasteries and the humanity which wee use to the poore Also beside the rest of our order that of leters of mark which wee give to those that need when they travail from Countrey to Countrey Julian believed not that these Orders came from God because hee believed not Christianity Those that can believe as hee did of these Orders why not of Christianity Those Christians whose purses maintained the charge of them would not have been so forward had they thought themselves left free to themselves without obligation from our Lord by his Apostles And to that which hath been said to make evidence of this Law and other Lawes whereby the Church was made a Corporation by the Apostles I will here desire the Reader to adde all that hee shall finde written by Epiphanius in the end of his work against all Heresies concerning the Rules and customs of that one Church which continueth so only by separating from them Perhaps they who can think the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles meer fables because the books were not written by them to whom they are intitled will not believe that Epiphanius would have writ the same things had they not been real and visible CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law I Am now come to the point principally insisted on for all this is premised for a ground to that contradiction which I must frame to that which hath been said against the Power of Excommunicating in the Church To which insisting upon the premises I say That I am so farr from pretending that right to depend upon the Church by virtue of the Law that I insist expresly that there was no such thing introduced by Moses Law or in force under the Law of Nature in the time of the Patriarchs And not onely admit but as for my Interest demand all that for truth which the first book de Synedriis hath proved at large and saved all them that believe it the pains of doing iâ— again That Excommunication came in force in the Synagogue after the Captivity and in the dispersions of the Jewes when they desiring as their duty was to maintaine Gods Law by which they were to be governed and not having the Power of insticting Penalties requisite to maintaine it as not being inabled by their Soveraignes devised a course that might appear reasonable because necessary upon â—upposition of their own Law and yet lesse presuming upon the Soveraigne Power Which was to devest those that should incurr that forfeit of the privilege of a Jew and to banish him the conversation of his native people either in whole or in part as the penalty was to be measured by the offense And truly I count my self with the world obliged to him that hath imployed so much learning to show it and that it will onely become the wilfulness of them who neither understand the Scriptures themselves nor will learn of them that do to imagine an Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the Secular under the Law in which the Priesthood were Judges And to take paines to show themselves uncapable of truth by seeking to maintain that which hee hath showed to be evidently false But this being granted I do not understand what reason can be imagined why it
probable and have still much reason to believe that the Christians at Rome lived at first divided into two Bodies one of Jewes under S. Peter the other of Gentiles under S. Paul For the Jewes as in the Land of Promise they were bound by the Law to protect strangers such as renouncing Idols should professe to serve the true God but not to suffer Idolaters to live in it So in their dispersions they must needs finde themselves bound proportionably to cherish those that should make the like profession whom they called the Godly of the Nations But the Empire and the Ministers thereof whether they intended to comprise them in the right and privilege of Jewes because joyned to their Religion or of Gentiles because uncircumcised the text of that Scripture decides not I confesse considering the words of Suetonius Claud. XXV Judaeos impulsore Chresto assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit The Jewes raising continual tumults at the moving of Chrestus hee drove out of Rome I cannot give a better reason for the tumults which hee saith occasioned the Edict than the difference between them and the Christians part of whom were Jewes others adheered to them as Gentiles converted to the true God Whether his meaning be to lay the fault upon the Christians supposing that it is our Lord Christ whom hee calls Chrestus no difference in found being discernable Or whether hee meant to say that one Chrestus a Jew in Rome was author of those tumults as some would have it no reason can be given for those tumults so probable But whether so or not to our purpose it will be of no consequence For as well Gentilish as Jewish Christians being forced from Rome and seeking shelter among Christians elswhere would easily accomodate themselves with the Jewes of other parts upon the same terms as Christians did otherwise and yet continue to preserve themselves Christians and thereby members of the Church upon such terms as all Christians understood It should seem by the Epistle to the Ephesians I. 11 12 13. II. 2 3. 11-20 III. 1-6 that the first foundation of that Church was meerly of Gentiles the Jewes that may have been converted being so few that S. Paul held them not considerable to be taken notice of in his Epistle A thing that agrees punctually with that which S. Luke relates Acts XIX 8 9 10. that S. Paul perceiving hee could not prevail with the Jewes by his discourses in the Synagogue departed and separated the Disciples that is the Christians from them disputing dayly in the School of one Tyrannus And this for two years till the Gospel was known to all Asia Jewes and Gentiles This Tyrannus neverthelesse holding a School seems to have been a Doctor of the Jewes Law so that all Jewes refused not the Faith These I suppose no man will argue that they used Excommunication as the Jewes did because they had departed from the Jewes And yet it is agreeable to the case under Gallio to conceive that they were looked upon by the Romanes as a sort of men that had broke from the Jewes whose Religion they had professed afore and indifferently protected by them as not concerned in the difference while no Law was made against Christianity The coming indeed of S. John into Asia seems to have inned a very great harvest of Jews into the Church by that compliance which his successors at Ephesus and in the rest of Asia held with the Jewes for the winning of them to Christianity But this was afterwards In fine before the separation of Christians from the Jewes the Church seems to have been as it were a childe unborn in the mothers womb which though it draw the means of subsistence from the mother yet is it complete in all the same faculties of life which it shall exercise afterwards So whatsoever it was fit for the Church to do while it held communion with the Synagogue it was able then by the Power of conducting as well as founding it in the Apostles to do whatsoever it did afterwards onely the Body was strangely changed which it was to govern CHAP. XVIII The difference between S. Pauls anathema and that of the Jewes It is not necessary that the Christians anathema should signifie cursing That the incestuous person at Corinth was Excommunicated by S. Paul Jurisdiction of the Church Telling the Church binding and loosing holding him that is bound for a Heathen or a Publicane signisie the same The coherence of our Lords discourse Of Excommunication and Indulgence by private persons in the Ancient Church That Excommunication and the Power of the Church could not come in force by the voluntary consent of the first Christians How it may be said to be voluntary Of the confederacy of the primitive Christians ANd here I cannot chuse but mervail that the Anathema which S. Pauls Epistles mention sometimes should be made an argument that the Excommunication which hee means by it is the same which the Jews used because theirs was called by the same name For the answer is the same that I said afore of the name of the Church but there is more particular evidence for the reason here in the words of the Apostle I do for my part believe them that conceive the name by which the Jewes call anathema that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the same that S. Paul means by maranatha For the Jewes use to call God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Name And this I conceive they compound with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to come and to make of both the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying maledixit or execravit hee cursed by the coming of God Though they use it to signifie the least degree of Excommunication whereas to curse a man by the coming of God seems to leave him to God to take vengeance of as incurable and desperate For every man knows how much difference there is between the original and use of words Now it is evident by the writings of the Prophets every where that they use to describe the appearance of God to punish sin in the stile of Gods coming And in that stile the passage which S. Jude referreth to proceedeth Jude 14 15. Behold the Lord cometh with his holy myriads to execute vengeance on all and to reprove all their wickednesse for all the wicked works that they have done and for all the hard words which they have stoken against him as wicked sinners For these are the words which Enoch the seventh from Adam is brought in speaking in that place to the old world whom hee preached to to recall them from that wickednesse which in the end was punished by the deluge Now when S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XVI 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be anathema maranatha It is plain that Maranatha signifies our Lord comes And so referrs to the second coming of our Lord Christ which the Gospel preaches For this learned person
de Virginibus velandis Wherein hee disputes whether they were priviledged against S. Pauls order I Cor. XI 5-15 of vailing their faces in the Church of the rank of Marryrs and Consessors that is those who had abondones themselves to whatsoever the prosession of Chrissianity should inferre howsoever they escaped I need say nothing The esteem of them being known to have been such that it is no mervail if their desire or their sentence were counted a Prejudice or Prerogative to the Church As thus At the elections of the Romane Magistrates the Century of the Tribe that voted first was counted to have a Prerogative the Vore thereof being a kinde of Prejudice to them that followed to vote the same So that it was found that whose carried this Prerogative commonly carried the whole Vote Such was the effect of that absolution which Consessors in their durance did sometimes grant Penitents in the Primitive Church To wit a confidence grounded upon the esteem of their merit towards Christianity that their act would not be made void by the Body of the Church Whereupon S. Cypr. Epist XII Qui libellos à Martyribus acceperunt eorum Praerogativâ apud Deum adjuvari possunt Those who have received billets from the Martyrs and may finde help before God by their Prerogative The Monks Excommunication proceeded upon the same ground That is to say upon a confidence that whom hee by that sentence declared to have forfeited the Communion of the Church in his judgment those who had his Holinesse in esteem would not communicate with The Emperors proceeding shows it was not for nothing Who being absolved by the Ordinary rested not content till hee had satisfied the Monk The reason because even then it might be evident that the preservation of Unity in the Church obliged to grant the Communion thereof to such as there was no reasonable assurance that Gods pardon did go before it which otherwise the restoring of that Communion ought to suppose Which might move a tender conscience to do more than the Church injoyned him to do But I intend not hereby to justifie maters of fact in the Primitive Church It shall serve my turn to argue that the reason inferred appears not by this practice because another reason doth appear Onely I say further that nothing of primitive institution can be argued from a custome which they that relate it Tertullian and S. Cyprian do mark for an abuse tending either to abate the severity of discipline or to dissolve the unity of the Church And therefore hee that observes all this must not forget to observe the reasons whereby S. Cyprian protests that the courses whereby those of his time went about to force the consent of the Church by the credit of the Martyrs were seditious Ep. IX XXII And also the course that hee takes to referr the mater to the debate and common sentence of other Churches equally concerned in the cause Ep. XVII For to have recourse to the Unity of the Church to cure the distemper of a particular Church had been against common sense for him that had not known that those whom hee had to do with acknowledged the same And that being acknowledged it will be more against common sense to imagine that Martyrs or Confessors of one Church could give Law to the whole as they must do if wee suppose that absolution granted by them in the Church of Carthage was of it self of force and valid which by the same right and title must extend to all that were in the same case But there remains a second reason or plea how a Communion of the Church might be and so a Power to Excommunicate and by consequence other Rights in which it hath been showed that the Society of the Church subsisted before Constantine without any title of divine Right which Princes and States professing Christianity are bound to maintain For it is alleged that Excommunication and Penance which is the abatement of it was in force in the Primitive Church by virtue of the voluntary consent of Christians consederating themselves upon such terms as wee finde to have been in use into a discipline taken up of their own free resolution Which by consequence must be said of the rest of those rights wherein the Communion of the Church and the Unity thereof did consist at that time To which I must except generally in the first place That this plea whether true or false for the present is not receivable so much as into consideration untill it be qualified and limited so that it may be consistent with the former now refuted For no man can pretend to advance such a plea for his cause as consists of two parts whereof the first destroyes the second Now it was pretended afore that there was no Excommunication in use under the Apostles but that which was in force in the Synagogue by virtue of Moses Law and the Power erected by it of introducing such Penalties as the maintenance thereof should require And here it is pretended That Excommunication and other effects of Ecclesiastical Power came in force upon the voluntary agreement of Christians Therefore the whole plea if you will have it hang together must be this That the whole Body of Christians did voluntarily agree among themselvs to receive that Excommunication which was in force by virtue of the Law and by consequence such other Rights already in force by virtue of the Law as they agreed to be no lesse usefull for maintaining the Communion of the Church than they found Excommunication to be And on these termes I admit the two parts of this plea not to be inconsistent For the effect of the whole will be this That there was indeed a Society and Corporation of one visible Church from the beginning of Christianity to Constantine such as I now challenge that there ought to be But not by any order of the Apostles or title of divine right but by the free consent of all Christians which being the consent of subjects and subsisting by sufferance of the Soveraign resolves into his will when hee pleases to seize it into his hands But then I will appeal to the common reason of all men whether it be consistent therewith in two regards The first shall be that which I alleged before out of Irenaeus whether it be consistent with common sense to imagine that neither the Churches planted in the Germane Provinces or Spanish or Ganlish of the Romane Empire nor those in the East nor in Aegypt or Africk nor those that were planted in the middle parts of the world should practice or observe otherwise than the Communion which de facto I have already showed to have been maintained among them did require and all this have no other beginning than their own free and voluntary consent prevented by no obligation at all but the dictate of common reason pronouncing what would be best for the maintenance of that common Christianity to which wee suppose
to a Christian but due from all that will be what they professe So the indowing of the Church to those purposes for which the communion thereof standeth though called Alms even by the Laws of this Land had never prevailed over all Christendom had not the obligation thereof been a part of our common Christianity But now as concerning the Power of determining Controversies of Faith I do here insist upon this argument That because no Secular Power is inabled by God to determine Controversies of Faith therefore God hath provided a Society of the Church for preservation of unity among Christians by such determinations as may reasonably satisfie the consciences of those for whom they are made Though not in order to any penalty of this world pretending by outward force to constrain obedience but onely in order to the Communion of the Church that is to the holding or loosing of it as a man conforms to the determination or not All outward force and constraint being acknowledged to proceed from the power of the Sword which the Soveraign beareth This difficulty onely the Leviathan answers they who denying the Power of Excommunication dissolve the Communion of the Church and the Society thereof into the Community of a Christian Common-wealth contenting themselves to name godly Magistrates which term I use not because incompetible to the Soveraign or Christian Powers as if their godlinesse or Christianity did intitle them to this Power though it might have concerned them to show how the Profession of Christianity comes to oblige Christian Subjects to the determinations of Christian or godly Powers if they would not be thought to begg the question which they tye themselves to answer For I also say that all Christians stand bound to the decrees of godly Powers because I suppose and the presumption of piety implies them to suppose that it is a part of godliness to profess one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church the unity whereof once professed obliges a private Christian to be of it a publick person to maintain it Which if the Soveraign do then must hee maintain those persons who by the Society of the Church have right to act in behalf of the Church both in doing their duty and in giving force to their Acts. For I acknowledge as I have already done two points of that right which Secular Power hath in the acting of Church maters The first is that which the trust of Secular Power importeth in all maters As they hold it not by their Christianity and therefore not by the Church so that they suffer it not to be invaded upon pretense of Christianity and the Power of the Church For as experience hath showed that there may be such pretenses So the reasons whereupon I ground the Society and right of Soveraign Power show that Christianity abridgeth not the Soveraign Power in any thing that may concerne the publick peace The second arises from Christianity Which as it giveth all Christians an interest both in all Christian truth and in the Communion of the Church as the common birth-right of Christians So it giveth publick Powers a publick interest in the maintenance of the same That is of all truth which the Church by the acts of the Church done by the Power of the Church for the preservation of Christianity stands possest of and of all Lawes whereby the Communion of the Church in the service of God according to Christianity is duely maintained But this interest presupposeth therefore a Society of the Church by the acts whereof Christian truth and the unity of the Church is to be maintained And importeth in the Soveraign a Right to constrain even those that act in behalf of the Church not to transgresse their own profession that is either the due power of determining things questionable which the Society of the Church inferreth or the acts which have been duely done by the same Therefore not supposing this Society that is such an Act of the Church as it may be evident that the Soveraign may or ought to maintain because it may be evident that the Church transgresses not those grounds which it professes and supposing Controversies among Christians about Christianity I say the Secular Power can have no right to determine them that is to oblige those that are under their Power to stand to the determination which they shall makeâ— unlesse wee do grant that by their Christianity they may be obliged to believe one thing and by their Allegiance to professe another For seeing there be Soveraignes that professe Christianity whereof some are of the Eastern others of the Western Church and of these some of the Communion of the Church of Rome others that are departed from it some Calvinists others Lutherans and Socinus his Sect no man knowes how soon some Soveraign may follow besides new Religions that appear how shall the common profession of Piety or Christianity oblige several Nations to obey those Lawes whereby several Soveraignties may establish contrary things in Christianity but by obliging them to professe contrary to what they believe For what contradictions soever are held among Christians neverthelesse they are sensible that no mans private spirit that is any evidence of Christian truth in the minde of one man can oblige another man to follow it because it imports no evidence to make that which hee thinks hee sees appear to others What becomes then of the Christianity of Christian Subjects obliging them to stand to the Determination of their Soveraignes in all things questionable If the Soveraign Power have right to limit all that is questionable this right will create an obligation of professing and doing the contrary of that which Christianity will oblige a man to believe and to think fit to be done Unlesse all the Subjects of each Soveraign have the strange hap to believe as their Soveraigns in all things questionable Besides if the Soveraign Power have right to determine them it will be impossible to show a reason why this Power in him that is no Christian should not have the same right Seeing it is plain that the common profession of Christianity being in Soveraigns that command contrary things does it not and the Soveraign Power which remains is the same in those that are not Christians as in those that are And therefore I conceive that the Leviathan hath done like a Philosopher in this to object unto himself the greatest of those difficulties that his opinion is liable to and hath but pursued his own principles when hee inquires what a Christian should do when a Soveraign that is no Christian commands him to renounce Christianity For when hee argueth that every Soveraign by being a Soveraign is the chief Teacher of his people whom it is manifest that Soveraigns Teach not but by their Laws or commands but that Christianity onely inableth to use this Power right Hee must know that there is no Power that will not oblige when it is used amisse though not to all purposes
by making that profession which the Church requireth owneth the person of the Church for Corporations are persons in Law for the evidence which hee trusteth in the mater of his Salvation I shall not need to have recourse to the Article of our Creed to prove that hee owneth the unity of it and obligeth himself upon his Salvation to abide in the same Nor indeed have I any need here to repeat the processe by which I have demonstrated the corporation of the Church Here I inferre as clearly gained by it that the effect of binding or loosing men from sin is limited by God to a condition of acknowedging or not acknowledging the Church for two reasons and in two cases For hee that is admitted to Baptisme upon professing the Faith of the Church and undertaking to live as a Christian if hee transgresse this profession forfeits the communion of the Church which hee attained by making it And hee that acknowledgeth the unity of the Church which all that are baptized must needs acknowledge forfeits his share in it by doing that which dissolveth it though hee transgresse not the profession of his Christianity doing it Now it appeareth by S. Paul and our Lord that Christians under Infidels are forbidden to carry any of their sutes out of the Church and commanded to end them among themselves And shall hee not forfeit the benefit of his Christianity and become bound by the sin hee committeth in so doing that doth this I may therefore grant Erastus and this Doctor that Let him be to thee as a Heathen or Publicane signifies be it lawful for thee to implead him before Unbelievers But it must be as I said afore upon supposition that hee is first excommunicate and become no Christian to thee and therefore to be used as a Heathen or a Publicane As also I grant him that to be delivered to Satan signifies not to be excommunicate but supposes it For if S. Paul calling the miraculous graces of the Apostles time the manifestation of the Spirit do teach us that the world was thereby convicted That God of a truth was in his Church as hee saith again 1 Cor. XIV 24 25 then was it to the same purpose and effect that those who were shut out of the Church should become liable to the incursions of evil Spirits To wit To make the difference between the Land of Goshen and the rest of Egypt visible It was therefore necessary that the power of binding or loosing in the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord should be accompanied with the gift of the Holy Ghost which our Lord breathed upon them For by them the world was to be assured upon what termes they might be loosed from sinne and continue in the Unity of the Church which if they forsook they became bound again But there is not the same reason why the same should be thought requisite to the same power in their successors For those terms being once declared and settled hee that professeth and teacheth them as the Apostles have taught is a competent Minister to loose or to bind another not onely though hee have not that gift of the Holy Ghost that may make him appear to be appointed by God to that purpose but also though hee be bound himself because hee undergoes not that which hee professeth Now if the premises be true it is a mistake as grosse as pernicious to imagine that particular Christians by the light common to all Christians are Judges in all things concerning Christianity or the Scriptures For if the attaining of Christianity and Salvation by it require no more but to know the Rule of of Faith and the common precepts of Christian conversation together with the Offices wherewith God is to be served by his Church If the gift of the Holy Ghost be promised to those that are baptized upon undertaking this then is the understanding of the rest of the Scriptures no further required at their hands neither have they any warrant for that which they shall do upon any such presumption as this The Church that hath received of God the trust of maintaining unity in this service of God so as may best stand with the maintenance of that profession which it presupposeth hath by consequence an obligation upon them to stand to the resolution thereof saving that common Christianity which the constitution thereof presupposeth It is therefore utterly a most poisonous doctrine to be infused into the ears of Christian people that they are by their Christianity free to cast themselves into Churches as they may meet with those whom they best like to communicate with It is therefore a thing to stand astonished at that they who have hitherto declamed against any thing in Christianity the reason whereof is not to be derived from the Scripture not seeing in the Scripture any such thing as a Church that was not founded by the Apostles or by commission from the Apostles not in all Christianity any thing ever counted a Church that was not planted by mean authority derived thence to some Church should now think themselves at liberty to build Churches upon no other foundation than an arbitrary agreement of seven persons Suppose I say nothing as yet in what right and interest several Members or rather several ranks and qualities concurre to the resolution of the Church Suppose I grant the power may be so abused that several parts of the Church may stand obliged to provide for themselves without the whole which is al that the common profession of Reformation importeth Shall we not be throughly reformed till we renounce one Catholick Church as visibly a corporation as the Baptisme which we received upon acknowledging of it is visible If every Church be planted by the authority of the Apostles to that effect extant and alive in some Church then is not the communion thereof with all other Churches by the means of that which planted it communicating with all arbitrary but a necessary consequence of that obligation to the Unity of the whole which it gets by being a Church Nor is there any reason why the acts of the whole whether done by representatives in Synods or resolved at distance of time and place by intelligence and correspondence of the absent should any way depend upon the satisfaction of particular Christians how just or how requisite For neither doth their conformity to them in any reasonable construction import any ingagement of their conscience to the justice or necessity of them Unlesse it could be said that a man could not live in society without binding himself to answer for the acts of that society wherein hee liveth Which hee that saith will not find an independent congregation to continue in for four and twenty hours or to enter into onely for one For what obligation can all Christians have to answer for that which our Christianity upon profession whereof we are become Christians containeth not Indeed when the abuse is so visible that the unity of
that wee are at a distance from the Church of Rome and all who communicate with it upon a just cause of refusing the Reformation as all that professe the Reformation suppose And therefore that there remains no visible presumption what is true the ground of visibility being destroyed by the division of the Church I shall be far enough from extenuating the force of this objection or the effect of this division acknowledging that according to my opinion holding both the Reformation and the Catholick Church the Church should be visible but is indeed invisible Not absolutely but as that which is hardly visible may truly be called invisible because every one whom it concerns cannot attain to discern it upon clear grounds For my intent is to aggravate the mischiefs of division to the highest which they who believe not the Catholick Church do not take for any inconvenience And therefore I grant all and do acknowledge that division in the Church necessarily destroyeth that provision which God hath made for the unlearned as well as the learned equally concerned in the common Salvation of Christians to discern by their common sense where to resort for that which is necessary to the Salvation of all and how to improve and husband the same as their proficience in Christianity calls for more at their hands then the Salvation of all requires Whereby it comes to pass that they are put to make their choice in maters whereof it is not possible for ordinary capacities to comprehend the grounds And so must chuse out of fansy education prejudice faction or which is the vilest of all interest of this world which is in one word profit But this being a choice that must be made and though difficult yet possible to be well made hee that without supposing Infallibility on the one side or Reformation on the other side would discern between true and false supposing the Original unity of the Catholick Church must be a madman if hee advise not with the Records of the Catholick Church though out of date as to force of Law on both sides to tell him wherein Reformation infallibly consisteth For by that means though hee shall not be able to restore that unity which is once violated the duty of all but obliging to an effect that cannot take place without the consent of parties yet hee shall be able so to behave himself and that Church which goes by this Rule be it greater or be it lesse shall be so constituted as not to make but to suffer the division which it is charged with But hee who preaches original liberty to all Christians to cast themselves into Presbyteries or into Congregations at their choice bids them sail the main Sea without Ballast and besides departing from the Unity of the Church by becoming Members of arbitrary Societies not parts of the whole by the visible act of visible power in it expose themselves to the shelves and quick sands of positions destructive to the Faith of the Church And I am to demand of this Doctor if the Presbyteries be Churches by association of Congregations and the Congregations Churches without it and those which are neither Presbyteries nor Congregations that is in effect all the Parish Churches of the land be Churches no lesse than either of both because they have one whom the Triers call a godly man sent them to preach whatsoever he can make of the Bible I say I must demand of him what it is that qualifies a man a Member of a Church or a Church a Church and how a man by being such a one becomes a Member of the whole Church which hitherto hath been thought necessary to the Salvation of every Christian For who knoweth not the dispute that remains between the Reformation and the Church of Rome which shall be the true Church Which if every man be at liberty to become a Member of a Congregation with any six more that hee likes who by that means shall be a Church is plainly about nothing And therefore wee are plainly invited to a new Christianity part whereof hath hitherto been to think our selves Members of the Catholick Church by being Members of some particular Church part of the Catholick So certain it is that had not the Creed been first banished out of mens hearts it had not been banished out of the Church But when this Doctor maintaineth further that all men having power in chief to chuse for themselves in mater of Religion the Soveraign hath Power not onely to chuse for it self but to impose penalties upon those which owe no man any account of their choice if they chuse not that which the Soveraign chuseth I confesse I find this toucheth mee and the remnant of the Church of England to the quick edifying the Soveraign to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who find themselves bound never to communicate in the change that is made and in making in Religion amongst us But I find withal so much inconsequence and contradiction to his own sense and the sense of all Christians in it that I hope no Secular Power will be so prodigal of a good conscience as to make it self the executioner of a doctrine tending to so unchristian injustice For if as hee saith no man is answerable for the Religion hee chuseth to any but God how shall hee be liable to be punished by man for that wherein hee offendeth him not Or how can any man offend him to whom hee is not countable Nor will it serve the turn to say That by denying protection in the exercise of Religion the Secular Power punisheth no man for the judgement of his conscience For all Christians of what profession soever do generally believe that they are bound to exercise the Religion which they are bound to professe That Baptisme wherein by the positive will of God under the Gospel the profession of Christianity consisteth truly obliging true Christians to assemble themselves for the service of God with his Church according to the Rules of it It cannot therefore be said that it is no penalty no persecution for Religion to deny protection in the exercise of Religion to them who are not punished for the judgment of their conscience For whosoever can be supposed to be a good Christian not onely had rather but surely had better lose his life much more any comfort of it than lose the exercise of his Christianity in the service of God whereupon his Salvation so neerly dependeth Nor will it serve the turn to say as this Doctor saith that in persecuting the Christian Faith much more in denying protection to the exercise of any profession which it inforceth the Heathen Emperors exceeded not their Power but onely abused it having granted afore that a man is free to chuse for himself that is not countable for his Religion to his Soveraign For if it once be said that God granteth all men all freedom in the choice of their Religion it cannot
originall practice of the Church whither in prescribing what is to be believed what is to be professed or what is to be done So manifest must it remain that nothing can be resolved by plurality of votes of Ecclesiasticall Writers as to the point of truth For then were the priviledge of infallibility in the votes of those Writers which themselves disclaim from the substance of what they write And it is to say that what had no such priviledge when it was written if it have more Authors survive that hold it shall be and must be held infallible Which consequences being ridiculous it followeth that for the tryal of truth within the bounds aforesaid recourse must be had to the means premised And the effect of those means every dayes experience witnesseth For the obligation which all men think they have firmly to hold that which by these means they have all concluded from the Scriptures is the consequence of these principles in expounding the same Which obligation though sometimes imaginary in regard that between contradictory reasons the consequence may be equally firm on both sides yet that it cannot be otherwise he that believes the truth of Christianity must needs imagine For true principles truly used necessarily produce nothing but true consequences Which if it be so why should any question be made that the Church may and sometimes ought to proceed in determining the truth of things questionable upon occasion of the Scriptures concerning the rule of Christian faith or which is all one that the exercise of this power by the Church produceth in those that are of the Church an obligation of submitting to the same Indeed here be two obligations which sometimes may contradict one another and therefore whatsoever the matter of them be the effects of them cannot be contraries The use of the means to determine the meaning of the Scriptures produceth an obligation of holding that which followeth from it which obligation no man can have or ought to imagine he hath before the due use of such meanes whither his estate in the Church oblige him to use them or not But the visible determination of the Church obliges all that are of the Church not to scandalize the unity thereof by professing contrary to the same And to both these obligations the same man may be subject as the matter may be to wit as one that hath resolved the question upon true principles not to believe the contrary and as one of the Church that believes the Church faileth in that for which he is bound not to break the unity thereof not to professe against what the Church determineth For I am bold to say again that there is no society no communion in the world whether Civill Ecclesiasticall Military or whatsoever it be that can subsist unlesse we grant that the Act of superiour Power obligeth sometimes when it is ill used In the mean time I say not that this holds alwaies and in matters of whatsoever concernment nor do take upon me generally to resolve this no more then what is the mater of the rule of Faith which he that believes may be saved he that positively believes it not all cannot It shall be enough for me if I may give an opinion whether that which we complain of be of value to disoblige us to our superiours or not As concerning what is questioned amongst us whither it be of the rule of Faith or not But this I shall say that to justifie the use of this power towards God requireth not onely a perswasion of the truth competent to the weight of the point in question in those that determine for the Church but also a probable judgement that the determination which they shall make will be the meanes to reduce contrary opinions to that sense which they see so great Authority profess and injoyn For without doubt there can be no such means to dissolve the unity of the Church as a precipitate and immature determination of something that is become questionable For effectually to proceed to exercise Ecclesiasticall Communion upon terms contrary to that which hath been received afore is actually to dissolve the unity of the Church The ingagement to make good that which men shall have once done being the most powerful Witcheraft and Ligature in the world to blind them from seeing that which all men see besides themselves or at least from confessing to see that which they cannot but see But if we speak of things which concern the communion of the Church in those offices which God is to be served with by Christians or that tend to maintain the same besides the meaning and truth of the Scriptures there remains a further question what is or ought to be law to the Church and oblige them that are of the Church seeing that whatsoever is in the Scripture obligeth not the Church for Law though obliged to beleeve it for truth the resolution whereof will require evidence of the reason for which every thing was done by the Apostles for as it holds or not so the constitution grounded upon it is to hold either alwaies or onely as it holds And this reason must be evidenced by the Authority of the Church admitting that reason into force whither by express act or by silent practice When the Israelites are commanded to eat the Passeover in haste with their loins girt and their staves in their hands there is appearance enough that the intent of it was onely concerning that Passeover which first they celebrated in Egypt not for an order alwaies to continue because then the case required haste and because then the Angell passed over their houses upon the door-posts whereof the blood was commandded to be sprinkled that by that marke he might passe over them to smite the Egyptians For though Philo would have the Passeover to be celebrated at home and not at Jerusalem though perhaps onely by those of the dispersions those that dwelt in the Land of promise being all tied to resort to Jerusalem yet all that acknowledge the Talmud think it not lawfull to celebrate it but at Jerusalem contenting themselves with the Supper and abatng the Lambe as one of those sacrifices which the Law forbiddeth every where but before the Ark. But had not the practice of the Nation and the Authority of the Elders trusted by the Law to determine such matters appeared in the businesse our Lord who according to his own doctrine was subject to their constitutions had not had a rule for his proceeding So in the infancy of Christianity it is no marvail if the Christians at Jerusalem entertained daily communion even at board also among themselves and that they gave their estates to the maintenance of it not by any law of communion of goods but as the common necessity required For what could make more towards the advancement of Christianity And when at Corinth and in other Churches the communion was in use though not so frequent nor giving up their
The Word shines upon all and is hid to none saith Clemens to the Gentiles But it is enough for his purpose that they may be convinced of Christianity whether the Scriptures contain it clearly to all understandings or not Tertullian prescribeth that when once wee believe wee are to believe that wee have nothing else to believe because the Gnosticks pretended secrets which our common Christianity they confessed contained not Claudius Apollinaris is afraid that our common Christianity might be thought unperfit if hee should write against Montanus And does not Christians writing one against another cast a mark of imperfection upon it in the opinion of unbelievers though Christians ought to know that God is not tyed to prevent offenses Assuredly the Gospel of which hee speaks is neither any one Gospel nor all four Nor can the word Gospel signifie either the New Testament alone or the Old and New both Nor could hee be thought to adde to them by expounding them and thereby maintaining the Church Therefore hee inferrs a good consequence that because it is forbidden to adde to or take from the Law therefore our common Christianity is not unperfit nor ought wee to do that whereby it may seem unperfit Now as for the sayings alleged out of S. Austine that import as much as the words which wee had afore Ego Evangelio non crederem having showed what is the effect and intent of them I shall not be very solicitous to show how all that is said to the same effect is answered For as there is no head so hard that cannot distinguish between the authority of the Church as it is a visible Body of men that could never have been cozened into the beliefe of Christianity upon pretended motives whether sufficient or not and as it is supposed by Christians to be a Body founded by God So is there no heart so hardned with prejudice as to refuse this demand That the authority of the Church as the Church presupposes the truth of Christianity and therefore proves it not And by consequence no truth that Christianity either containeth or inferreth Which being admitted if any thing be ascribed to the Church which seems not to suppose any part of Christian truth it must be referred to the authority and credit of the Church as a visible Body of men moving others to imbrace the Christian Faith For though this credit contribute to the making of those men Christians which are won to the Church already setled and so the Church is the Church before they are Christians Yet is the ground and reason which makes the Church a Body founded by God to wit the profession of Christianity more ancient in order of reason and nature than the being of the Church And upon supposition of this ground that is that the Church hath true reasons as well as sufficient to believe proceeds all that authority of the Church which S. Austine allegeth to the Manichees upon so high terms that hee would not believe were hee not moved by it to believe Neither was it the authority of the Church vested in the rest of the Apostles that gave S. Paul the authority of an Apostle over the Church though I have said afore that all the authority which the Church can ever have was in the Apostles and disciples of our Lord for the time And though it is manifest that S. Paul could not have had the Authority of an Apostle over the Church had he not been owned by the rest of the Apostles but the Authority of our Lord Christ in the Apostles of the same effect in obliging the Church to receive S. Paul for an Apostle as to receive that which they preached for the Faith Nor is the mater much otherwise in the receiving of any Scripture for Canonital For neither can any mans writing be owned for Canonical Scripture not supposing his person owned by the Apostles And his authority being so owned is necessarily before any authority of the Church and the very being of it That some Scriptures may be received in some Churches and not in others is not because any Church can have authority to reject that which another is bound to receive but because some Church may not know that some Scripture comes from a man so owned by the Apostles though another may know it and yet be a Church and salvation be had in the communion of it such knowledg depending meerly upon evidence in point of fact And therefore the act of the Church in listing the Scripture hath no authority but that which the presumption of such evidence createth As for the rest of that which is alleged for the authority of the Church if S. Jerome resolve to stand to the Church of Rome it is not because hee takes the sentence thereof to be infallible but because hee had reason to presume that it were in vain for an Angel in heaven to preach any other Faith to it than that which once had been received Nor doth S. Cyprian make the not believing the Popes infallibility the sourse of all Heresie and Schism but the neglect of authority derived from the Apostles upon the Heads of particular Churches in the consent of whom the visibility of the true Faith and Church both consisteth For it is meer slight of hand to take the Rock which the Gates of Hell vanquish not in S. Austine for the Church of Rome because hee spoke of it in the words next afore Being meant of the Vine which hee had speech of a little afore that to wit the Christianity which our Lord Christ preacheth For in S. Bernards time I grant the stile was changed and it might passe for good doctrine to say That the Faith cannot suffer any failleur in the Church of Rome As for all those passages of the Fathers which are alleged in recommendation whether of Tradition for the Rule of Faith or of Traditions which are the Lawes of the Church they are all mine own They cannot serve the turn of any opinion but that which I pretend That the Tradition of the Church witnessed and evidenced by the continual exercice and practice of the Church extant in the records of the Church not constituted and created by any expresse act of those that have authority in behalf of the Church as it giveth bounds to the interpretation of the Scripture in such things as concern the Rule of Faith So it discovereth what Lawes the Church received from the Apostles and by consequence what is agreeable and consequent to the intent of the same in future times according to the difference between that and the present state of the Church Let those things therefore which have been produced here be added to that which I alleged in the beginning to make evidence for the Corporation of the Church from the Lawes given it by the Apostles Irenaus shall serve both for the authority of the Scripture antecedent to the authority of the Church and for the Tradition of the Church bounding
provided a visible Judg infallible in determining Controversies of Faith either because originally his goodnesse requires it or because wee cannot suppose that men can be obliged to imbrace the Gospel upon other terms It is sufficient that having given the Scriptures hee hath over and above provided the Communion of the Church to preserve the Rule of Faith and the Laws of the Church in the sensible knowledg and common practice of all Christians that the means of salvation might be sufficient and yet men remain subject to trial whether they would render them uneffectual or not to themselvs and the rest of mankinde I confess indeed it would be much for the ease of the parties and would shorten their work very much if it might be admitted for a presumption that all things necessary are clear in the Scriptures or that the Church is an infallible Judg in Controversies of Faith For then the superficial sound of the words of Scripture repeated by rote in the Pulpit or out of the Pulpit would serve to knock the greatest question on the head without any advise what difficulties remain behind undecided upon no lesse appearances in Scripture On the other side a decree of the Council of Trent would serve to put the Scripture to silence without any proffer to satisfie the conscience that is moved with the authority thereof equally obliging with our common Christianity with the sense of the Church on the same side to boot Thus much is visible that they whose businesse it is in England to reconcile souls to the Church of Rome finde their work ready done when they have gained this point and men all their lives afore grounded upon contrary reasons in the particulars which are the subject of the breach change their profession without any coutrary resolution in those particulars that is their former grounds remaining in force Surely nothing were more desirable than a ready and short way to the truth in things so concerning But to pretend it upon a ground which if any thing can be demonstrative in this kinde is demonstratively proved that it cannot be true To wit the authority of the Church decreeing without means to derive that which it decreeth from the motives that should evidence it to be revealed by God This I say to pretend is no better than an Imposture And if this be true I remain secure of that which every man will object against the resolution which I advance that whereas the meaning of the Scripture alone is a thing too difficult for the most part of men to compasse I require further that it be assured by the records of the Church which are endlesse and which no mans industry can attain to know So that the meer despair of finding resolution by the means propounded will justifie to God him that followes probabilities as being all one in that case whether there be no truth or whether it cannot appear to those whom it concerns This Objection I say I do not finde so heavy upon mee that I have any cause to mince but rather to aggravate the difficulty of it having showed that the means provided by God to make evidence of the Faith to the consciences of particular Chaistians is not any gift of infallibility vested in any person or persons on behalf of the whole Church but the Unity of the whole Church grounded upon the profession of the same Faith as the condition of it For in all reason what Unity bindes that Division destroyes And whatsoever Unity contributes to the assurance of a Christian that hee is in the way to salvation so long as hee continues in the Unity of the Church that the Division of the Church necessarily derogates from the same assurance in him that cannot continue in that Unity which is once dissolved and yet believing the Scriptures and our common Christianity to be infallibly true cannot believe the parties to be infallible as they are And what hath hee that desireth the Unity of the Church to do but to aggravate that difficulty of attaining salvation which the division thereof produceth I do therefore grant and challenge as for mine own Interest that it is very difficult for unlearned Christians to discern the truth in those Controversies about which a settled division is once formed as now in the Western Church At least upon so true and so clear grounds as may assure them that they make their choice upon no other interest than that of Gods truth But I do not therefore yield to that which this difficulty it seems hath wrung from Vincentius Lerinensis with whom agreeth the Opus imperfectum in Mat. as you have them quoted afore That there is no means but Scripture to convince inveterate Heresies The reason whereof the later of those authors renders Because those Heresies have their Churches their Pastors and the succession of them and their Communion as well as Catholick Christians For hee supposeth Pastors lawfully constituted to have fallen away to those Heresies And truly the case of this difficulty was put when the Arian Faction had possessed so great a part of the Church that S. Gregory Nazianzene in the place afore quoted acknowledges that the true Church could not be judged by numbers With whom S. Hilary libro de Synodis agreeth But if the same Nazianzene scorn them that value the Church by numbers Liberius in the place afore quoted out of Theodoret revies it upon him in saying that the cause of the Faith could not suffer though hee were alone For not onely the Scriptures continue alwaies the same but though the present Church fail it follows not that the Tradition of the Whole Church must fail with it So long as the original sense of the Whole Church may be evident by the agreement thereof with the Scripture wee may discern what is Catholick without the sentence of the present Church And that which is not so to be discerned for Catholick wee may presume that our salvation requires us not to believe it And therefore Vincentius and his fellow are so to be understood that it is difficult indeed to make evidence to private Christians of Tradition contrary to that which they see received by Heresies And therefore that for the convicting of them in the truth recourie is to be had to the Scriptures But Vincentius who as I showed you acknowledges evidence for Tradition from written records of the Church need not have said that there is no means to convince inveterate Heresies but the Scriptures Be this difficulty then the evidence how much it concerns the salvation of all Christians that the Unity of the Church be restored That the choice of private Christians in maters concerning their salvation be not put upon the sentencing of those disputes the reasons whereof they are not able to manage For being restored upon agreement in those things which it is sufficient for all Christians to believe it will neither be easie for private Christians to frame to themselves opinions
Valerianus de Flavigny Professor of the Ebrew in the University of Paris written in opposition to an opinion vented in the Preface to the great Bible lately published there in disparagement of the Ebrew Copy of the Old Testament Where hee shall see that opinion refuted with that eagernesse and the contrary attested by the opinions of so many Divines of so great note in the Church of Rome since that Council that no man that sees them can deny that notwithstanding the decree it is free for every man to maintain the original Copies to be authentick And truly hee that should affirm the credit of the Scripture to stand upon the decree of the present Church or upon the testimony of the Spirit must by consequence have recourse to the same visible decree or to the same invisible dictate whensoever it shall be necessary to accept or refuse the reading of any text of Scripture with that faith which if it be false the whole truth of Christianity will be forfeit What Rushworth and his possession would do to evidence what reading of the Scripture is indeed authentick when as it doth not appear what is the reading which the Church is truly in possession of let him advise For in that case hee must expresly avow the consequence of his position that the Scripture is not considerable in resolving Controversies of Faith Because the Church is not in possession of the certain reading of any Scripture For if hee say hee hath made short work in that question having discharged the Scripture of being necessary to the Church and therefore acquitted himself of any necessity to show how wee may come by true Scripture and in stead thereof and all other means of deciding Controversies in the Church established the tradition presently in possession First it will be easier for mee to verifie the short Rule of Faith by the Scriptures interpreted according to that which by records may appear to have been from the beginning of force in the Church than it will be for him to show what is the Tradition which the Church is in possession of at present And that this being showed I shall not need to fear any great danger that hee may object from the variety of reading which may be found in several Copies the necessity of salvation being secured And then in the next place to say That the Scripture is not necessary though not for the salvation of every Christian yet for the salvation of the Body of Christians which is the Church Though that faction which separation ingenders will suffer no opinion to be plausible but those which are in extreams Yet I hope the malice of Satan hath not yet debauched the ears of Christians to indure And thus as afore it was settled that the whole Scripture is received for the word of God upon the credit of Tradition so of every part and parcel of it wherein the credit of several Copies consisteth it is consequently to be said that nothing can oblige the faith of a Christian to receive it unquestionably for the word of God the Tradition whereof is not unquestionable But thus mâ—ch being settled That what was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew is to be received for the authentick Word of God What was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew may still remain questionable That is to say this being agreed it may still remain questionable what Copies they are that do contain that which was originally delivered in Greek and Ebrew How probable it is I need not yet say but any man of common sense must say that it is possible through the changes that time is able to produce that the translations shall prove better than the originals and that the Scriptures shall be truer read among those that have received than among those that delivered them And this is indeed the true state of the question which is now come to be disputed upon due terms as it seems To wit whether the Ebrew Copies which now wee have from the Jews and the Greek Copies of the New Testament now extant contain that Scripture which all Christians are bound to receive upon their Christianity not onely in opposition to the Vulgar Latine which the Council of Trent injoyneth and to the authority of the present Church thinking that it is concluded in that decree but in opposition to that Tradition which other ancient Copies either original or translated may and do contain and evidence In which point I shall in the first place professe as concerning the Old Testament that I finde it no inconvenience but a great deal of reason to grant that at what time those books were made up into a Body and consigned unto the Synagogue the reading which wee have received from them was not delivered as unquestionable so that it should be any prejudice to the Law of God to suspect it but as the most probable and by admitting whereof no prejudiee to the said Law could follow And the safety of this position both Jews and Christians will witnesse with mee For if the Jews rruly acknowledg and insist that their Judaism is sufficiently grounded and witnessed by the leter of the Old Testament which wee have the Christians that their Christianity is as sufficiently to be evidenced by the Copies wee have as Christianity was intended to be delivered by the Scriptures of the Old Testament Is it possible that it should be a mater of jealousie for mee to admit that in that Body of the Old Testament which the Christians have received from the Jews there may be found some passages the reading whereof was not received as unquestionable when the Body of the Old Testament was consigned to the Synagogue from whence the Church receiveth it I say not when this time was nor would I have that which I affirm here to stand upon a circumstance so disputable I do believe the Jews when they tell us of the men of the Great Synagogue after the return from the Captivity from whom and by whom the Scriptures they believe were settled and delivered to their posterity I do also believe that this Assembly might and did indure whilest the Grace of Prophets had vogue and was in force among Gods people For if I believe them when they tell mee that there was such a company of men I cannot disbelieve them that the Prophets Haggai Zachary and Malachi the Scribe Esdras the same with Malachi as they tell us for any thing I know for why should I not believe Malachi being appellative and signifying my messenger to be Esdras his surname given him from that which is prophesied Mal. III. 1 Mordecai Nehemias Josue the son of Josedok and many others of that time were of it But shall I believe that their Prophetical grace was imployed to decide the true reading of the Scripture shall I believe that a new revelation was given to notifie how every leter and syllable was to be read when neither the consequence of the mater required it
out of which that excellent translation into the Syriack which to the great benefit of Christianity these last ages have brought into Europe was made The antiquity of this later and the eminent helps which it hath contributed toward the understanding of the New Testament being so great as the Vulgar Latine though very learned and therefore very helpfull can never out-shine And yet will I never grant that either one or both of them and that with the help of the Arabick and other the most ancient Translations which the Church beside may have are not to give account to the consent of many Copies now extant nay to the credit of some one if it should so fall out in any passage that the sense of the Scripture which cannot be made out by the rest is clear to common reason according to that one Whether such a case do ever fall out in any part of the Scripture or not The assurance of Christianity not standing in this that either this or that is or must needs be true but in this that the Church is assured in all cases But by this it may appear how innocent the resolution of the authentick Original of the Old Testament vvhich I have premised is and hovv safely I ground my self not upon the credit of the Jevvs Copy but upon all the records vvhereby the Church assureth the Tradition of the Scripture In that it is freely confessed that the difference of reading vvhich can become questionable notvvithstanding the superstitious diligence of the Jevvs in preserving their Copy is neither so frequent nor any thing so vveighty as in the Nevv Which hovv much more considerable it is tovvards the upholding of our common Christianity is plain enough to him that shall have perused but the premises And surely vvere it not true as hath been premised that a certain Rule of Faith vvas from the beginning delivered to the Church it vvould seem strange that wee cannot deny that there have considerable differences crept into the reading of the New Testament so much more nearly concerning our salvation than the Old in the reading whereof through the diligence of the Jews there remains no considerable difference But if wee remember that S. Paul makes the ministery of Preaching the Gospel to be the ministery of the Spirit in opposition to the ministery of Moses in giving the Law which was the ministeâ—y of the leter wee shall finde that Faith the receiving whereof qualified Christians to be indowed with the Holy Ghost to be of such sufficience that remaining intire wee need not think the Church disparaged if the records thereof suffer decay so long as the effect of them remains written by the Holy Ghost in the hearts and lives of Christians Alwayes it being unquestionable that there are considerable differences remaining in the reading of the New Testament it will be a very great impertinence to fore-cast any danger in granting that some question may be made to the Jews Copy of the Old Testament though neither so frequent nor so considerable And all that hath been said hath issue in this consequence to justifie and to recommend to the world the usefulnesse of the design lately set on foot in London for printing the Bible with the most ancient and learned Translations in columns most agreeably to the design of Origen in his Teâ—rapla Hexapla and Octapla that is Old Testament of four six and eight columns recording the several numbers of Translations or columns whereof his several Editions consisted For in a word this furniture and that which serves to the same purpose for who will undertake that one book shall contain all is the Instrument I appeal to for evidence of the Scripture which wee have And further here is the original means of determining the sense of the same though besides this I have claimed many other helps to be requisite to that purpose The end of the First Book LAUS DEO OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE The second BOOK CHAP. 1. Two parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions THE greatest difference that is to be discerned among those things that concern the duty of all Christians consists in this that some of them concern Christians as Christians others as members of the Church For though all Christians as Christians are bound to be members of the Church in as much as it is a part of their profession to believe one Catholick Church yet their obligation to be Christians being in order of nature and reason before their obligation to be members of the Church because the very being of the Church presupposeth all that are members of it to be Christians that obligation which is originall and more ancient must needs be presupposed to that which is grounded upon it Of what consequence it may be to distinguish this difference in the matter of Christian duties will perhaps appear in due time In the mean I shall freely say my opinion that all the Divines in the Christian world cannot more pertinently and to better purpose comprise the subject which they professe to be imployed about then by dividing it into that which concerns Christians as Christians and that which concerns them as members of the Church For mine own present purpose it is evident that the disputes which divide us do concern either the state of particular Christians towards God or the obligation they have to other Christians as members of the Church So that the matter which I propose to my insuing discourse is sufficiently comprised in two heads one of the Covenant of Grace the other of the Laws of the Church I know it may be said that the heresie of Socinus is of the number of those that have footing among us and that the principal point of it concerning the faith of the holy Trinity comes not properly under either of these heads And I deny not that it is very dangerous for us in regard of two points that have so great vogue among us The first is the cleare sufficience of the Scriptures commonly passing so without any limits that it seems to follow of good right that what is not clear out of the Scriptures to all understandings cannot be necessary for the salvation of all Christians to believe So that no man can be bound to take that for an Article of his Faith against which they can show him arguments out of the Scriptures which he cannot clearly assoile The other is that they put it in the power of Christians to erect Churches at their pleasure though supposing the Faith which Socinus teacheth and pretending to serve God according to the same without
man for Communion with the Church by Baptisme but of that which the Church professeth to have received from our Lord and his Apostles And this is the true ground of the foundation of the Church and the Society thereof whereof so much hath been said To wit that God giving his Gospel for the salvation of mankind did think fit to trust the guard and exercise of it to men once instructed by those to whom at the first he had given immediate Commission to publish and establish Christianity Rather then leave them to expect at his hands every day new revelations and miracles for introducing that which had once been sufficiently declared And also rather then leave every man to his own head to make what he can of the Scriptures and think he hath salvation by living according to it For supposing that Christianity which is delivered by the Scriptures once subject to be misunderstood and corrupted of which we have but too much experience an effectual course to preserve it will be to found a Corporation or Society of the Church the members whereof each in his owne ranck should remaine intrusted by God but by the meanes of their predecessors from whom they received Christianity to preserve both the profession of Christian truth and the exercise of Gods service inviolable Nor is it effectuall to say that the unity of the Church may fail being divided by Heresies and Schismes insomuch that that Baptisme which is visibly valide and good shall be void of that invisible effect which it pretendeth For it is not requisite that God should provide such meanes of salvation as may be undefeisible It is enough that they are reasonable He that is Baptized into a profession destructive to that which all Christians are bound upon their salvation to believe perishes for want of Faith setting aside the unity of the Church which his Herisie violates over and above But if the unity of the Church be of such advantage to the maintenance of our common Christianity as it was before the dissolving of it it is no marvaile if the Baptisme of Schismaticks though valide and good for the visible forme become voide of effect to them who by receiving it make themselves parties to the breach of the unity of the Church We agree that the Power of the Church of Rome is the occasion of many abuses in the Church What they are it is my present businesse to enquire He that bounds the interpretation of the Scriptures within the sense of the Catholike Church shall not transgresse the Law of Gods truth in that inquiry He that accepts the bounds of his own fansy in stead of them is it not just with God if he die If once common Christianity and the maintenance thereof depend so much upon the unity of the Church is it not reason that the benefit of it should depend upon the same he who having attained the true Faith and according to the same seeking the unity of the Church faileth of it without any fault of his owne if he who so seeketh it can be supposed to faile of it hath the difficulty of overcoming his own ignorance to pleade for his excuse But for them who have the consent of all Christians from the beginning to oblige them to undertake the profession of Christianity by Baptisme but out of hatred to the present Church the abuses of it neglect baptisme upon presumption that they have the holy Ghost without it or that the reason why the Apostles Baptized is now ceased I say that for them I suppose there remaines no just plea seeing that by the unity of the Catholike Church they ought to have been guided in judging what is of the abuse of the present Church and what is not And thus that consideration which some seeme to be not without cause scandalized at when these effects of Christianity the power whereof must necessarily consist in an unfained heart are made to depend upon an outward ceremony of Baptisme which the Church gives is utterly voided by that reason which the Apostle insinuates when he sayes that Baptisme saves us not the laying down of the filth of the flesh but that profession to God which is made with a good and a sincere conscience Whereas those that distinguish that faith which alone justifieth from the profession thereof which baptisme executeth oblige themselves to make Baptisme a ceremony not whereon the promises of the Gospel depend but to signifie that they are had and obtained without it But to whom signifie not to God who giveth them Not to him that has them and by his faith knows he has them Not to the Church which can never be certified that he hath them indeed and demands onely to be certified that he wants nothing requisite to presume him to be such So that Baptisme being required onely to presume that a man is a Christian and that presumption being legally had by any act the Church or any that call themselves the Church can require as well as by being Baptized If that be all there is no reason to be given the Sociniant why Baptisme should be necessary to the salvation of Christians and therefore why it should not be in their power to use it or not to use it And truly I do much marvel to see the Socinians that have very well seen the truth concerning the twofold meaning of the Law literall and spirituall and the promise of the land of Canaan tied to the carnall observation thereof as that of everlasting life to the spirituall obedience of it I say I do marvel to see that in consequence hereunto they should not inferre that God hath appointed a spirituall people of the Christian Church answerable to Israel according to the flesh and that his spirituall promises should depend upon the visible imtiation of eveâ—â— Christian into the body of that people as the right of his temporal promises depended upon their initiation into the body of carnall Israelites not according to birth but according to promise Onely when I consider on the other side that without regard to the Article of the Catholick Church which Christians make a part of their Creed they rest in such a communion as their private perswasion of the sense of the Scriptures shall be of force to produce I do not marvail to see them not owne the consequence of their own principles when they see it not stand with other prejudices which they have imbraced I know there are two things will be objected here the one is a meer prejudice that by maintaining of free will by maintaining the Covenant of Grace to consist in an act of it we shall incurre the Heresie of Pelagius The other that if the condition of the Covenant of Grace be an expresse profession vow and promise to live as well as to believe according to what Christ hath taught and that without the use of reason no such promise can be of force or take place then infants cannot
Irenaeus expresly maintaineth him one and the same God with the Father and true God and his generation ineffable without beginning and from everlasting Clemens makes him God â—quall to God as his Sonne Origen not in any work now extant that may be questioned but as he is alledged by Athanasius de decretis Synodi Niceâ—ae saies of him that if there be any image of God who is invisible that image must also be invisible with a great deal more to the same purpose where he also quotes Theognostus in secundo hypopseon affirming the same at large to set aside those that are questioned And shall we not think our selves obliged so to understand their words which the importunity of Heresies have made questionable that they may consist and agree with those which remaine unquestionable Especially all of them agreeing in this That the world was made and is governed by Christ And that the whole dispensation of God tending to the salvation of mankinde whether before the Law or under the Law as well as since his appearing in the flesh was executed by him as a preface and prologue to his coming in the flesh a supposition which all seem to ground themselves upon especially against the Jewes in giving account of our common Christianity That our Faith is in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost That we are to glorifie to worship and to be baptized in the Name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost And in counting all Hereticks that denied it For communion with the Church not communicating with those who believe it not because they believe it not is an evidence which no words of doubtfull construction can obscure in the judgement of any man that is reasonable Nay among the very heathen that have made any mention of the Christian Faith doth not Plinies Epistle concerning the Christians acknowledge that they sung hymns to Christ as to God Doth not Lucian in his Philopatris manifestly expresse the Faith of the Trinity as the cognizance of Christians at that time hath it not appeared by these inventions wherewith the Gnosticks sophisticated it that the Fulness of the Godhead consists in the Trinity according to the Christian Faith as according to the severall Sects of them in their severall inventions That the Christians honoured and worshipped the blessed Trinity as those Sects did those imaginatitions of their own which they call the Fullnesse of the Godhead When Ebion Cerinthus Artemon Theodorus and after them Sabellius Noetus Praxâ—as and Paâ—lus Samosatenus were disowned by the whole Church and excluded the communion of all Christians did not all Churches that agreed in refusing them find themselves possessed of a contrary Faith as the reason for which they were refused Were all Christians out of their simplicity cunning enough to assoile all the reasons whereby these and Arius to boot did or might argue their pretenses from texts of Scripture Or did they think themselves bound to rest in the visible consent of the whole Church whether they were able to do that or not In fine the learned Jesuite Petavius in the Preface to his books de Trinitate and the beginning of the first as he hath evidently shewed that the substance of the faith of the Trinity is acknowledged by these ancient Christians some of whose words seem to disparage the Godhead of our Lord Christ So he indeavoureth to shew that they did it out of a desire to reconcile the faith with the doctrine of Plato and his followers If his opinion be admitted there will remaine evidence enough for the Tradition of Faith even in their writings whose skill in the Scriptures goes not the right way to maintaine it The plain song will be good musick though the descant transgresse Though for my part having seen what he hath said I repent me not of that which I had conceived out of Tertullianâ— That out of a desire to reconcile the creation of wisdome in the Proverbs according to the Greek not the doctrine of Plato with the rule of Faith they conceived this a supposition fit to do it That by Gods proceeding to create the World his mind or wisdome which incarnate is our Lord Christ attained not the essence and being which it had in God from everlasting but the denomination and quality of his Word and Sonne For you shall find there that most of them concurre in the speculations of Tertulliane Whereby you may see that this learned Jesuite is not agreed with the Cardinall du Perron to deny the reason why we hold the Faith of the holy Trinity originally from the decree of the Council of Nicâ—a and from that authority of the Church which maintaineth it But from the reason whereupon that decree was grounded and made That is from the meaning of the Scriptures expressed and limited by the Tradition of the Church And therefore not burthening my self here with the expounding of all those passages of their writings before Arius which may seem to derogate from the Tradition of the Church in that point I shall referre the Reader to those things whereby he showeth that they do unanimously concurre in maintaining the same Faith For if there be amongst them that have had speculations tending to reconcile some Scriptures to it which are not onely ill grounded as I dispute not but this of Tertulliane is but also prejudiciall to the Faith as some of Origens whom I have mentioned already That this is to be imputed to the inconsequence of their severall discourses not to any difference in their common Faith I remit you to that which he hath said to judge Onely whereas he de Trinitate II. 2. hath given you a full account of those Fathers which expound the words of our Lord The Father is greater then I to be meant of his Godhead which I have onely named in gross I will advise you again hereupon that many things which are said of the Sonne as inferior to the Father as when he is said to Minister unto the Father in creating the World may be imputed not to any inequality in that Godhead which is the same in all the Trinity but unto the manner of having it the Father originally as the Fountaine the Sonne and the holy Ghost as from him wherein the difference of the persons consisteth To the same Petavius de Trinitate VIII 2. I remit them that would be satisfied of the sense of the Fathers in that which I alledged for the reason why our Lord is called the Word by S. John To wit that the intercourse between God and man after the fall was executed and managed by his Ministry Not because I think this name of the Word unfit to signifiy the originall proceeding of the Sonne from the Father much lesse his concurrence in and to the creation of all things But because believing as I do that the mystery of the Trinity is revealed by the coming of our Lord I find great reason to conceive that his Apostle intended thereby to intimate
Advocate with the father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins And when David who had the spirit of God upon the same termes as Christians have it excepting that which hath been excepted prayeth Psalm XIX 13 14. Who understandeth his errours Clense me from hidden sins Keep thy servant also from presumptuous sins that they beare not rule over me Then shall I be upright and cleane from great transgressions He showeth sufficiently the difference between veniall and mortall sins as to Christians which in case of invincible ignorance and meere supprize comes to no sin as to Christians But he showeth also that Christians neglecting themselves may come to fall into sins of persumption which he prayeth against For the rest the same S. Iohn incouraging Christians to pray for the sins of Christians with this limitation as I surppose if by their advice they appear to be reduced to take the cours which may procure pardon at Gods hands acknowledgeth further that there is a sin unto death I say not that yee pray for it saith he 1. John V. 16. 17. And the Apostle to the Hebrews VI. 4 5 6. speaketh of some sin which he acknowledgeth not that it can be admitted to penance for the obtaining of forgivenesse which he protesteth again Ebr. X. 26 -31 XII 16 17. It is commonly thought indeed that to deny the true faith against that light which God hath kindled in a mans conscience is hereby declared to be a sin that repentance cannot cure Or rather that God hereby declareth that he will never grant in repentance And truly that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which our Lord saith shall never he pardoned neither in this world nor in the world to come Mat. XII 31 32. Mark III. 28 29. Luke XII 10. manifestly consisteth in attributing the works which the holy Ghost did to convert men to Christ to the devill being convinced that our Lord came from God by the workes he did for that purpose Just as Saint Steven reproaches the Jewes for resisting the holy Ghost as their Fathers had done Acts VII 51. And that there is no cure for this sin it is manifest because it consisteth in rejecting the cure And apostasy from Christianity which is manifestly the sinne which the Apostle to the Hebrews intendeth differeth from it but as the obligation to Christianity once received differeth from that Christianity which being proposed with conviction a man is bound to receive But otherwise not onely the Church but the Novatians themselves supposed that those who had denied the Faith might recover pardon of God by repentance Nor can it become visible to the Church what is that conviction which whoso transgresseth becomes unpardonable because God hath excluded him from repentance In the meane time how difficult the Primitive Church accounted it to attaine pardon of such sinnes appeares by the excluding of the Montanists and Novatians first then by the long Penance prescribed Apostates Murtherers and Adulterers least the admitting of them to Penance might seem to warrant their pardon upon too light repentance Saint Paul admits the incestuous person at Corinth whether to Penance or to Communion with the Church But upon what termes Least the offender should be swallowed up with extream sorrow and least Satan should advantage himself against them should he refuse it And because having written out of great anguish of heart with teares for them who presumed to bear him out in it he had found them moved with sorrow according to God to repentance with all satisfaction and desire of peace with the Apostle 2 Cor. II. 1-8 VII 7-11 For we understand by Saint Paul 1 Cor. V. 2. 2 Cor. XII 21. that even the Church themselves when they shut a sinner out of the Church did make demonstration of sorrow for his case And therefore himself much more was put to mourning and to professe by his outward habit that he thought his sinne incurable without sorrow answerable to it And when Saint Paul commands the Collossians III. 5. Mortify your members that are upon earth fornication uncleannesse passion evill desire and covetousnesse which is idolatry For which the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience It is manifest that he placeth the mortifying of these vices in the afflicting and humbling of our earthly members wherein the lusts of them reside Therefore he serves his own body no otherwise but striving for the prize of Christians like one of their Greekish Champions that would not beat the aire he beates his own body black and blew to bring it under servitude Least having preached to others himself should become reprobate 1 Cor. IX 26 27. And certainly if Christianity require this discipline over Saint Pauls body least he should fall into sinne it will require very great severity of them that are fallen into sinne to be exercised upon their bodies the lusts whereof they have satisfied by those sinnes to regain the favour and appease the wrath of God and to settle that hatred of sinne and that love of goodnesse in the heart which the preventing of sinne for the future necessarily requireth The practice of the Old Testament sufficiently signifieth the same Though David in the Psalme that I mentioned afore seem to make the pardon of his sin a thing easily obtained at Gods hands as it is indeed a thing easily obtained supposing the disposition which David desired it with but not that disposition a thing easily obtained yet you shall find the same David elsewhere wetting his bed and watring his couch with his teares so that his beauty is gone with mourning his flesh dried up for want of fatnesse and his bones cleave to his flesh for the voice of his mourning Indeed he alwayes expresseth his affliction to be the subject of his mourning But alwayes acknowledging his sins to be the cause of those afflictions which he therefore takes the course to remove by taking this course for his sinnes The Prophet Esay I. 15 16. thus calleth the Jewes to appease Gods wrath Wash ye make ye clean remove the evil of your workes from before mine eyes cease to do evil learn to do good seek righteousnesse Sure this was never intended to be done by the meer thought of doing it But the Prophet Joel having threatned a plague what doth he prescribe for the cure And now saith the Lord return to me with all your heart with fasting weeping and mourning and rent your hearts and not your garments and turn to the Lord your God for he is gracious and mercifull long-suffering great in mercy and repenteth him of evill Blow the trumpet in Sion sanctify a fast invite the assembly gather the people sanctify a Congregation make the old and young and the sucking infants meet let the bridegroom come forth of his chamber and the bride of her closet let the Priests the ministers of the Lord weep between the Porch and the Altar and say Spare Lord thy people and
assure us of the necessity and efficacy of the works of humiliation and mortification for sinne in appeasing the wrath and recovering the favour of God in obtaining forgivenesse of sinne and restoring to the state of Grace which the ancient Church calleth satisfying for sinne By the same meanes it remaines manifest that these satisfactions are neither injoyned grievous sinners by the Scriptures nor notorious sinners by the Church out of any intent of extinguishing a debt of temporal punishment remaining after the sinne is pardoned That God when he gave the Gospell might have reserved a debt of temporall punishment upon them whose sinne he pardoneth by virtue of it I question not That he hath reserved it can never be proved the penalties which he exerciseth his children with being rather chastisements of love then revenges of wrath That this debt if not extinguished here by satisfaction injoyned in Penance remaines for Purgatory in the world to come I cannot here dispuâ—â— not having yet considered the effect of the keyes of the Church in Penance And therefore for the ground of it which must come from hence I shall conclude according to the premises That the condition which the Gospel requireth to bring a man to the state of Gods grace for remission of sinnes and right to everlasting life in point of conscience as to God as well as in point of profession as to the Church is presupposed to every mans being a Christian and a member of the Church With this difference indeed between them that are invited by the Church to be Christians and them who being Christians shall relapse to those finnes which by their Christianity they professe to forsake That to those that are without the cure of sinne is tendered meerly as Physick which the Physitian hath no meanes to constraine a man to take but his own interesse But to those that are within out of that authority and jurisdiction which the Corporation of the Church foundeth The last resolution whereof though it end in the interest of a mans own good which moveth him to professe Christianity yet that profession having ingaged him to be a Christiane by it he standes bound to stand to the judgement of the Church in all things within the authority of it Now if the Church ought to presume that he who is admitted to the communion thereof is qualified for remission of sinne before he be restored to it then cannot a man by being restored to the communion of the Church become qualified for it unlesse it can be said that the absolution of the Church can presuppose that which it effecteth which without a contradiction cannot be said The Church then pardons not sinne otherwise then as by the power of the keyes obliging the relapsed to use that cure which it prescribeth upon presumption of the cure wrought it warranteth pardon as having effected that disposition which qualifieth a man for it So that all the satisfaction that the Church can have that a man is qualified for pardon proceeds upon a presumption that God first is satisfied by the conversion of a sinner to that disposition which he requireth to remission of sin But evidently in consideration of our Lord Christ because by the Gospel whereof he is the subject As for the merit of Christian mens workes in relation to the world to come if it be considered on one hand how many wayes the Scripture declareth that it is impossible for any creature of God to come before hand with him that made it because his allsufficience allowes him not capable of any advantage that he may receive from it on the other hand that by originall concupiscence we are utterly disabled to satisfie for that in which we are come behind hand with God and for the future to satisfy that originall rule of righteousnesse due from man to God which our creation establisheth I shall not need to use many words in a plaine case that by the originall Law of God no man can merit the reward of everlasting life But by the promise of the Gospell God is tied to reward them with it For on the other side it is most evident that the Scriptures as well of the New Testament as of the Old in which I have showed how that salvation which we attaine by the Gospel is intimated that the favour of God and everlasting life is the prize of that gole the crown of that conquest the wage of that good â—ight of Faith which a Christian in this warfare upon earth professeth The Scriptures that containe this sense being every where so expresse and so well known that I conceive I do the Reader an ease in sparing him the paines of reading them here againe after so many canvases But besides the maine point established at the beginning of this Book inforces inevitably all that this resolution imports For if God have by the Gospell imposed upon Christians the condition of new obedience which Christians through his grace by Christ are able to tender him to recompense them with such a reward standes by his free promise ingaged to it in consideration of that new obedience which he requires This is the utmost which the name of merit can inforce understanding it to be grounded upon the promise of God declared by the Gospell which nothing but his own free grace designed through and in consideration of our Lord Christ before all consideration of any new obedience of Christians which wholly dependeth upon the same could ever have moved him to set on foote For having said before that a meritorious cause can have no place in respect of God otherwise then as he designes us good in consideration of good though the good he considers be originally his own gift whereas men are obliged in reason and justice to reward that good which themselves are prevented with originally as to them moving and obliging them to reward it but the merit of heaven never so fully ascribed to the workes of Christians who are obliged to understand it so to be ascribed by virtue of the Covenant of Grace it can be understood to signify no more then a quality which it requireth upon which the reward becomes due by virtue of that promise which requireth it And that this is the sense of the Catholike Church among infinite arguments this is enough to demonstrate Because whereas it is very well known that the Latine Fathers do attribute the stile and virtue of merits and meriting at Gods hands to the workes of Christians in respect to everlasting life the Greek Fathers in whose mouthes the word could not be expressing the same sense in such termes as their own language affords For who ever undertook to show any difference of sense between them those of the Reformation have alwayes maintainâ—d that their sense is the same with the sense of the ancient Church in the mouth of the Fathers For if in their mouth that word can import no prejudice to Christianity neither can it import
of his Gospel nor the faith of their Predecessors can make any appearance of freeing them from it what madness will it be not to expect it from not to impute it to that condition which succeedeth the condition by which the children of Gods ancient people stood intitled to the Land of promise CHAP. VIII What is alleadged to impeach Tradition for baptizing Infants Proves not that any could be saved regularly who dyed unbaptized but that baptizing at yeares was a strong means to make good Christians Why the Church now Baptize Infants What becomes of Infants dying unbaptized unanswerable What those Infants gâ—t who dye baptized ANd thus from the Scriptures alone I have proved that Infants are capable of Baptism and that the Church is bound to provide them of it unlesse we will say that the Church is not bound to provide them of that means of salvation which the Church alone dispenseth And upon these terms I conceive I may safely acknowledge that there is no Precept for baptizing of the Infants of Christians written in the Scripture presuming that it is written in the Scripture that Infants are to be provided of the necessary means of salvation by the Church For though it be not necessary that all Infants be baptized because they are Infants yet will it be necessary that they be baptized before they go out of the world And therefore while they are Infants rather then they should go out of the world unbaptized But the practice of the whole Church and that from the beginning challenges the effect of S. Augustines rule that what is received of the whole Church and not by any expresse act of the Church from which the beginning of it may be demonstrable must of necessity be imputed to the Tradition of the Apostles For the judgements of men being so diverse as they are how can it be imagined that so great a body and so farre dispersed as the Church should agree to impose such a bâ—rthen upon themselves had they not understood the obligation of it by the means of them from whom they received their Christianity The testimonies of Tertullian de Bapt. cap. XVIII of S. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XL. in sanctum baptisma and of Walafridus Strabus de Reb. Eccles cap. XXVI that dehoâ—t froâ— baptizing Infants or declare that the Church in the first ages did not baptize during infancy are so farre from making any exception to this evidence that they contain sufficient evidence for the same truth if we be so considerate as to understand this Tradition not to require that all be baptized during infancy but that no Infant go out of the world unbaptized For he that will imploy a litâ—le common sense may see that there may be reasons to make men think it better that Baptism be ministred to those that can understand what it imports what they undertake provided that they go not out of the world unbaptized but that there be an effectual course taken for the baptizing of them in danger of death For that it is not my sense but the sense of the Churâ—h that makes the Baptisâ— of Infants necessary not because Infants but least they dye unbaptizâ—d I appeal to S. Austine Enchirid. cap. XLIII A parvulo enim recens nato usque ad decrepitum fenem sicut nullus prohibendus est à baptismâ— ita nullus est qui non peccato â—oriatur in baptismâ— Sed parâ—uli tantum Orginali For from the litle one new born to the decrepâ—t old man as none is to be hindred of Baptism so is there none that does not dye to sin in Baptism But little ones onely to Original He â—aith not that from young to old all are to be Baptized but none is to be refused Baptism supposing the necessity of his case and the rule of the Church to require it The same is to be said of the Canon of Neo-caesarea that allows the baptism of a woman with childe because it exâ—nds not to the baptizing of the Infant in her wombe before confession of faith And of the custoâ—â— of the Greeks to this day testified by Balfanum and Renaras upon that Canon For what need more words I acknowledge that Vives upon S. Austin de Civit. dei l. 27. gives very great reasons why it were better that the Baptism of Infants were differred till they come to the discretion of understâ—nding to what they ingage themselves But shall I therefore believe that Vives was an Anabaptist that he did not believe Original sinne that he acknowledged any cure for it without Baptism that he thought it not necessary to salvation that all should be Baptized before death A ridiculous thing once to imagine Thus much for certain so sure and evident as it is that when he writ this the custome of the Church was to baptize Infants so certain it is that when all that I have alledged was written and done that men should not be baptized in infancy there was a constant custome and practice in force in the Church whereby care was taken that no Infant should dye unbaptized And though they expresse reasons for which they had rather Christians should be baptized at years yet never any Christian expressed any opinion or any reason why Infants should not be baptized rather then dye unbaptized Never was there any opinion heard of and allowed in the Church that Gods Predestination adore without Baptism or any thing else beside it can be taken for a cure of Original sin Irenaeus is one of the next to the Apostles that we have He when he saith II. 39. Christus venit per seipsum omnes salvare omnes inquam qui per eum renâ—scuntur in deum infantes parvulos parvos juvenes seniores Christ came to save by himself all who by him are born anew unto God Infants and litle ones and children and young men and old ones If any man think fit to question whether in his language renati in deum can be understood without Baptism when he speaks of Infants must suppose that one that is not an Infant may bee regenerate without it Such a one must know that though he dare understand that which S. Paul never said when he calls Baptism the laver of regeneration Titus III. 5. yet Irenaeus with the whole Church of God never understood any regeneration without it Thus much for certain as to these words of Irenaeus if he understand the regeneration of men to be by Baptism he cannot understand the regeneration of Infants to come otherwise S. Cyprian whatsoever his reasons be when he contendeth for the baptizing of all Infants as he evidences the practice of the Church so he maintaines the same grounds upon which I have shewed that it did proceed Tertullian de Animâ cap. XXXIX S. Gregory Nazianzene Orat. XLII abundantly prove mine intent The words of Tertullian Huic enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tam ex seminis praerogativâ
do not therefore condemn this custome for a prophanation of the Sacrament when it was in use Infants cannot examine themselves neither can they presume in eating that bread and drinking of that cup. But neither can they be taught to do all things which Christ commandeth so soon as they are made his Disciples by being baptized If the Church duely presume that with remission of sinnes they attain the gift of Gods spirit by being baptized did it unduly presume that remission of sinnes remaining uninterrupted the gift of the Holy Ghost may be strengthned by receiving the Eucharist Let us rather watch over our own customes then condemn the customes of the Church The grace of the Holy Ghost may be fortified by the Sacrament of the Eucharist against those occasions of re-entry which the evil Spirit espieth in those that begin to perceive the difference between good and bad though unable to reflect upon themselves and to judge whither in the state of Grace or not If the Eucharist be prophâ—ned where they take it too young what pretense of Christianity or of a Church remains where neither young nor old take it CHAP. IX What controversie the Reformation hath with the Church of Rome about Penance Inward repentance that is sincere obtaineth pardon alone Remission of sinnes by the Gospel onely The condition of it by the Ministrey of the Church What the power of binding and loosing contains more then Preaching or taking away offenses Sinne may be pardoned without the use of it Wherein the necessity of using it lyeth I Have showed from the beginning that the Power of the Keyes which is the foundation of the Church is seen much more towards them that are already of the Church then them that are not of it For in those there is but one thing for the Church to judge whether their perswasion and resolution be such as qualifies them to be baptized Disciples of Christ that is Christians But in these so many particulars as the profession of a Christian is imployed about so many are there for this power to judge whether the profession of a Christian be discharged in them or not And this ground must needs be much strengthned by that which hath been resolved concerning the Covenant of Grace and the terms of it For if the profession of Christianity be that which qualifies a Christian for remission of sinnes and life everlasting then he that fails of this profession by any such sinne as cannot stand with it as he attained the communion of the Church upon presumption that he stood qualified for the promises of the Gospel so he failes of it upon evidence that he is not so qualified Therefore though the Powâ—r of the Keyes is seen in free admitting to the Communion of the Church yet is it more visible in excluding from the same as well as in readmitting to it And this is the next act or the next object which the the power of the Church is imployed about that comes here to be considered The difficulty whereof seems to stand in that which the Church of Romes by the Law of confessing once a year all sinnes that come to remembrance seems to teach That no sinne or at least none of those which a man is bound to confesse which in what sense they may and are to be allowed mortal sinnes I have showed in due place can be remitted him that falls into them after Baptism unlesse the Keyes of the Church passe upon them The opposite whereof in the other extream seems to be the opinion of those that pâ—etend for a point of Reformation and of that freedom to which the Gospel calls Christians That though it be necessary to give satisfaction to the the Church which shal have been scandalized by the evil example of a notorious offence yet that no office of the Church and of the Keys which it is â—rusted with by our Lord concurs to the loosing of that sinne which the Church hath first tied a man with by excluding him from the communion of the Church But that it is wholly to be imputed to the preaching of the Gospel ministred by the Church when it is received by faith Though for the present I inquire not what they would have this faith to be having distinguished the consequences of the several conceâ—ts which may be had about it afore For this difficulty being here proposed in the beginning I do not foresee any thing of moment in question concerning this power of the Church the effect â—nd intent of it that will not come to be determined by virâ—ue of the reâ—olution therâ—of and in consequence to it Which resolution shall briâ—fly be this That inwâ—rd repentance with confession to God alone that is â—â—ncere and effectual to the reforming of that which a man repents of for the future is a diâ—position qualifying a man for pardon of sâ—â—ne by virtue of the Covenant of Grace without any act of the Church passing upon it But that God hath charged his Church and therefore given it power and right to call all those that notoriously transgresse that Christianity which once they have professed to those demonstrations of inward repentance and amendment of mind by visible actions that may satisfie the Church that Gods wrath in regard of that sinne is appeased through Christ and upon these demonstrations to readmit them to communion with the Church And further that God having provided this means of procuring and assuring the pardon of sinne by the Church hath also obliged all Christians to make use of the same by bringing their secret sinnes to the knowledge of the Church so farre and in as much as they ought to stand convict that the ministry of the Church is requisite to procure in them that disposition which by the Gospel intiles them to forgivenessâ— This resolution hath several parts which I have thought fit to be thus wound up in one not onely for brevities sake which I seek so farre as it will let me be understood but for the dependance they have one upon another in point of reason and truth And first to clear the foundation in the first place I suppose what our Saviour preached himselfe in publishing his Gospel according as it stands declared and setled by the premises to wit that mankind being lost in sinne and neither the law of Nature nor that of Moses being able to reduce it to righteousnesse and so to happinesse God by our Lord Christ requires all them that find themselves surprized in this estate to believe him to be sent for remission of sinnes and life everlasting to all that turning from that conversation in which they are overtaken do make the glory of God the end and his will the rule of their actions for the future by undertaking to live like Christians in hope of being inabled by Gods spirit to perform the same for Christ his merits and of being accepted for his suffering This being the summe of Christ his Gospel according to
limited yet must not this limitation be such as shall abate any thing of the promise of the Gospel which the Sacraments bring with them to those who by a competent resolution for their Christianity are qualified for it Turn we to the Law and the Prophets and observe according to the premises that there was no expiation prescribed by the Law for the inward guilt of sinne but for outward uncleannesses or incapacities of conversing among the people of God and by consequence of injoying the benefit of the Land of promise together with some sinnes which the Law specifies but condemns not to any bodily or pecuniary punishment Wherefore seeing we read in the Law and the Prophets so many exhortations to repentance which if we suppose to come from God we cannot suppose to be void of a promise implyed tendring pardon and favour at Gods hands upon repentance it is necessary to acknowledg that inward repentance under the Law qualified for remission of sinnes Read the seaven Penitentiall Psâ—lms and tell me how men came then to be cleansed of their sinnes David affirming Psal LI. 18. Thou desirest no sacrifice else would I give it thee but thou delightest not in burnt-offerings but by that faith which moved them to seek reconcilement with God by repentance and by that conversion to righteousnesse which their faith supposed acceptable to God So the Prophets Ezek. XVIII 32. XXXIII 9-20 Esay I. 18. 1 King VIII 33. 2 Chron. VI. 24. besides infinite more For if we say that men were then bound to confesse their sinnes that they might be cleansed by the Synagogue he that confessed a capitall crime must incurre a capitall punishment and without death there was no way to cleanse him of it If we say he might be cleansed by sacrifice by the Synagogue without confessing the sin why not under the Gospel by means answerable that is by the Eucharist and the oblations out of which it is celebrated without confessing in particular to the Church I do not therefore here dispute what sins might be and what might not be purged by sacrifices not doubting by many passages of the Prophets and Ecclesiasticus that the righteous and spiritual men of that people under the Law did offer sacrifices for the expiation of those sinnes which there was no particular promise in the Law that God would pardon upon those sacrifices But first I suppose that though God allowed their conformity to his present Law in offering sacrifices that were not expresly required by it but customed by Gods people upon it yet he accepted them not for those sacrifices but for that repentance and conversion of heart from whence they came Thereupon then I argue in the second place that if without declaring the kind of sinne under the Law under the Gospel much more For seeing that there is no expiation for capital crimes without death by the Law he that should offer sacrifice for such a sinne declaring it must become liable to death And the same is the case in the second rank of offenses against the Law which it punisheth with scourging Those also belonging to that rank which the Law threatens with death by the hand of God which renders their life forfeit into Gods hands Because of the Rule which they have that if they come to be know to the Synagogue they are to be punished with scourging For who can imagine that these can be purged by the Law without undergoing the penalty of the Law And therefore if sacrifices were offered for them they were not confessed seeing that all estates in the Synagogue which was bound to punish them were also bound to bring them to punishment As for the Church it hath been already declared that the constitution thereof presupposeth in order of nature and reason the covenant of Grace that is to say the condition upon which the Gospel tendreth remission of sinnes So that as we have all the reason in the world to think that God hath founded the corporation of his Church to be the means of affecting or procuring that dispoâ—ition which qualifieth for the promises of the Gospel So if the same diâ—poâ—â—â—ion câ—n be procured without the ministery of the Church which suppoâ—â—th the knowledge of particulâ—r sinnes there can be no cause why God should injoyn that the effect whereof is to be had without it Now I suppose from the premiâ—es that those who live within the Church have sufficient helps of Gods Grace to â—â—able them to return from their sinnes by repentance As for thoâ—e helps which â—hâ—y may have by the ministery of the Church making known their â—â—nnes to it Though they may be of such virâ—ue as to make that more 〈◊〉 which is poâ—sible without them Yet when all is done that man câ—n do it exâ—â—edâ—th not the same kind of helys whiâ—h man outwardly may rendâ—râ—â—o Goâ—s inwâ—râ—â—râ—ce Which as it is more probâ—ble that Gods good providence should â—â—ke â—ffectuall then where the same outwâ—rd meanâ— are not imployed or where they are imployed in a lesse measure So is it possible that bâ—ing onâ—e â—â—ffiâ—â—â—nt they may become effectual by Gods grace though in a 〈◊〉 measure But I confesse there is nothing prevailes more with me to conclude this then that which the Scripture affords us to evidence that God hâ—â—h instituted and appointed the Ministery of his Church for the reconciling oâ— thoâ—e â—â—nnes which must or which may come to the knowledge of his Church For when God giveth first to S. Peter the Keyes of his Church Mat. XVIII 19. and afterwards to all his Disciples the power of binding and loosing sinnes Joh. XX. 19. it is evident that by this power they are able to do nothing to unbelievers but perâ—wade them by preâ—ching the Gospel to imbrace that courâ—â— by which it tendreth râ—mission of sinne untill having perswaded them to it they oblige them to enter into the Church by Baptism as that to which God hath liâ—ited that profession of Christianity which he requires to remission of sinne Thus is the power of the Keyes or of binding and loosing sinne first seen and exercised in baptizing understanding thereby not onely the ministring of the Sacrament but the bringing of a man to that disposition to which Baptism is due The same is still exercised towards those that are come into the Church by laying forth to them the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets of our Lord and his Apostles obliging them to return from sinne by Repentance So that it cannot justly be said that Preaching as we call it that is further instructing in the doctrine of Christianity those that by the preaching of the Gospell have been moved to imbrace it is a thing impertinent to the power of the Keyes not concerning the office of it Unlesse we think ministring the helps of sufficient grace imperâ—inent to effectuall grace which alwayes supposeth them Having already shewed that before conversion to Christianity the power of the Keyes is seen in ministring the same
the ministery appointed by God in his Church furnishes Which if it be true it will inevitably follow that the most part of Christians are for the most part bound in conscience to have recourse to the power of the Church and the Keyes thereof for the cure of those sinnes which are not of themselves notorious And that other Christians may be tied in conscience to bring them to the Church for it by making known those sinnes which otherwise are not notorious To wit when they cannot reasonably presume that of themselves they will apply themselves to the means which the cure requires And if this be true it will also follow that it is in the power of the Church to make Rules of force to bind the consciences of those who are of the Church limiting the terms upon which they shall stand bound to have recourse to the Church for that purpose Indeed had the Apostles delivered any such faith That a man is justified by believing that he is appointed by God to salvation immediately upon consideration of Christ without any disposition qualifying him for it onely limiting his right in this appointment to the time that this appointment is revealed to him which revelation is that faith which alone justifieth I would then confesse that this interpretation of Scripture would no way be receivable because indeed no such Scriptures could have proceeded from those that delivered such a faith It would then be sufficient that he to whom this predestination is revealed by justifying faith should say Lord have mercy upon me at breathing out his last Or rather it would be needlesse nay damnable for him to desire that mercy which if he were not sure of before he said it he must be damned for want of that faith which onely saveth But if all Christians be justified by sincerely undertaking the profession of Christianity and that this sincerity is inconsistent with doing contrary to that which this profession containeth then let all men of discretion and conscience judge not whether the Church hath reason to believe that every such a one will voluntarily charge himself with that humiliation which may seem to mortifie the passions that made him sin afore and make his profession sincere for the future but whether himselfe hath reason to believe that either he knows how to value it or will effectually perform it not being instructed and obliged to it by the Church Seeing then on the side that God hath provided the Ministery of the Church for the purpose the effect of it in reconciling notorious sinnes being undeniable On the other no reason can presume that all Christians either know or will supply to themselves the work and effect of that Ministery being left to themselves It followeth that though voluntary Penance is not necessary for obtaining remission of every sinne yet it is necessary for the body of the Church because there is no ground of presumption that the sinnes thereof are or can be cleansed without it CHAP. X. The Sects of the Montanists Novations Donatists and Meletians evidence the cure of sinne by Penance to be a Tradition of the Apostles So doth the agreement of primitive practice with their writings Indulgence of regular Penance from the Apostles Confession of secret sinnes in the Primitive Church That no sinne can be cured without the Keyes of the Church there is no Tradition from the Apostles The necessity of confessing secret sinnes whereupon it stands ANd this is that whch the Tradition of the Church that is the originall and universall practice of Penance evidencing that it could have no other beginning then the authority of the Apostles which onely could oblige the whole Church throughly justifieth I told you at the beginning how near Montanus his Heresie was to the death of S. John when the age of the Apostles ended And it will not be amiss to tell you here that I shall show you in another place that in all probability it is still elder by above twenty years then Eusebius his account which there I allowed doth make it The pretense thereof among other austerities which they pretended to impose for Rules upon the whole Church upon the authority of Prophesies Inspirations and Revelations which they had or pretended to have was to exclude some great crimes from reconcilement with God by the means of the Church that is to say in the language of those times from being admitted to Penance I demand now of any man that will imploy a little of his common sense upon the businesse whether there had been any subject for Montanus to pretend the introducing of greater austerity then was practised in the Church in this point if there had been no practice of Penance then in the Church capable of greater strictnesse then was commonly practised And if his common sense gives no sentence let him advise either with that which remains of Tertullian for Montanus or against him in the records of the Church and tell me whether they do condemn the reconciling of sinne by Penance prescribed in the Church or that strictnâ—sse which Montanus pretended to introduce over and above the common practice evidencing therfore the force of that Penance which as generally practiâ—ed by condemning him for indeavouring to inhanse it Thus much for certain had not Montanus pretended to impose the austerity which he affected for a Rule upon the rest of the Church the occasion for which he was excluded out of the Church had not been He had reduced the Churches of Phrygia to his sense rather by the credit of those Revelations then by any authority which he stood professed of in them so farre as I learn And from thence it came to passe that his Doctrine continued so long in force there that the sect is call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which the Phrygians follow and the Sectaries Cataphryges in Latine But when according to the strict correspondence that then was exercised between all Churches it came to be communicated to the Churches of Asia we find by Eusebius how his pretense of Revelations was rejected as counterfeit or as unsufficient and by consequence the Law which upon the authority of them he pretended to impose upon the Church That being rejected by the neighbour Churches he travailed to Rome or sent to Rome to approve them there that being so received he might upon new grounds tender them to his neighbours we learn by Tertullian That being rejected there also Tertullian out of the passion he had for them being drawn away from the Church maintained their profession in a Church erected by Schism upon that account at Carthage till the times of S. Augustine by whom they were reduced to the communion of the Catholick Church we learn by Sirmondus his Praedestinatus and the same S. Augustine But otherwise the Phrygians were counted Sectaries by the rest of the Church that is necessarily Schismaticks and perhaps Hereticks if indeed by being separated from the body of the Church they became
it pitched upon are these That sorrow for sinne in consideration of the deformity of it and the fear of Hell with hope of pardon but without any intent to sinne again though of it self it bring not pardon yet disposeth to the attaining thereof by the Keys of the Church Which may be true though onely sorrow for the offence and for Gods sake qualifie for pardon by the Keys of the Church if we suppose that sorrow for a mans own sake which of necessity must first arise in him who discovereth himself surprized in sinne to be the way and the mean which Gods spirit actually assisteth him with that hath forfeited the gift of it to work him to that sorrow for Gods sake which qualifieth for pardon by the Keys of the Church Now what I am to say will easily appear before I say it to him that considers what I have said concerning the disposition that qualifieth for remission of sinne without consideration of the Church and the Keys of it The Ministery whereof suppose instituted to procure that disposition as supposing the Covenant of Grace which requires it That he who finds himself in the state of damnation by sinne must if God send him justifying faith in the next instance believe that he is predestinate to life without that resolution for his future Christianity which necessarily includeth sorrow for the offence of sin and for Gods sake without ground to presume of his perseverance till death in it I have showed to be an imagination utterly destructive to Christianity That he who confesses out of slavish fear being absolved should get that love of God above all which his pardon supposeth though an imagination not more destructive to Christianity then that may be destructive to the salvation of more Christians That slavish fear of the punishment due for sinne though in a person guilty of sin and not cured of the love of sinne is the work of the Holy Ghost helping him that hath forfeited the gift of it the way of recovering the state of Grace lost demonstrateth For if the Holy Ghost work not upon him that is in â—â—n how shall he recover out of it But is it strange that he who finding himself in the state of damnation by sin knows the onely means to be saved is to live as a Christian for the future should resolve so to do in obedience to God and for his service which he cannot do without that sorrow which the present losse of his favour implies Surely supposing the assistance of Gods spirit it cannot be otherwise If this be the case of a Christian as a Christian what can the Keys of the Church founded by God upon supposition of Christianity to bring men to it and to salvation by it do but be instrumental and ministerial to the work of grace in this case Confession therefore cannot require contrition that it sorrow for Gods sake nor absolution effect it But confession must be the means to procure it absolution the effect that must suppose it When that course of humiliation and mortification which the Keyes of the Church require shall have had the operation in settling that resolution for Christianity which they may presume upon for the future the sentence of obsolution recovereth the effect of Baptism and reneweth the gift of the Holy Ghost which perfect love that casteth out fear according to the Apostle attendeth This the primitive and Catholick practice of the Church as well as the covenant of Grace and the condition thereof demonstrateth It was not then the custome to receive confession of sin and immediately to give absolution binding the Penitent over to make satisfaction for a debt of temporall punishment remaining when the sin is done away The first thing was to be admitted to Penance to undertake the state and habit and fashion of a mourneâ— during the time and so to gain the prayers of the Church for his pardon to be joyned with a mans own indeavours Is not the means of changing attrition into contrition visible according to this course Can it be visible by a word of the Penitent though professing at the present to love God and hate sin above all things That the sentence of absolution should create that disposition which it findeth not agreeth no beter with the originall practice of the Church then with the originall condition upon which we are baptized And whatsoever Ornament the soul may be imagined to get by it that grace which quickens in him that becomes contrite can never be imputable to the Keys of the Church in Penance which were imployed without effecting it Nor can it be said to quicken by virtue of any such imaginary ornament which by virtue of the Covenant of Baptism quickens of course without imagining of it The bringing in of a definitive sentence of absolution instead of the Prayers of the Church which a man was admitted to by undertaking Penance the communion of the Eucharist being his actuall and finall reconcilement argues as much change in the inward Christianity as in the outward form of the Church But If the Prayers of the Church joyned with the Penance of the Penitent be a competent means to regain the state of Grace a Prayer immediately upon confession immediately before absolution is not How much less since the Council of Trent which makes the definitive sentence the substance the Prayers that are used but the accessories of the means of regaining the state of Grace by Penance I proceed not hereupon to say that the Ministery of Penance becomes void and uneffectuall to the purging of sin where it is exercised upon these terms For as he who relies upon the sentence of absolution for the producing of that disposition which is necessarily requisite to the remission of sinne must needs â—ail of that which he promiseth himselfe from that power of the Church which God never granted upon such terms So the imposing of Penance may be understood to pretend the ransoming of temporal punishment no otherwise then loosing the bond of sin whereby it may be turned into a spirituall blessing For though the granting of absolution and the communion of the Eucharist before Penance is in reason and according to the originall practice of the Church a contradiction to that sense yet nothing hinders the reason and the faith of Christians to bear up and not be caried away with those corruptions to which the imperfection of Laws naturally induceth the perverse inclinations which we are born with In the mean time it is worth the while to consider what consequences the conceit of infallibility in the Church not distinguishing whither the present or the Catholick creates as well in the opinons of Doctors as in the practice of people There is so much difference between the way of ministring of Penance in the primitive Churdh and the practice of Auricular Confession in the present Church of Rome as must needs signifie the hope of pardon to suppose the performance of Penance
reconcilement with God For where there is means for those that are detected of notorious sinnes to be restored to the Communion of the Church without the hardship of Penance there can be no reason to imagine that those whose sinnes are secret will of themselves submit themselves to the Keyes of the Church to procure pardon or to assure themselves of it I find great reason to believe that at the first those sinnes which were brought under publick Penance by the primitive Church were onely those three great crimes of Murder Adultery and Idolatry which the Montanists and Novatians excluded from reconcilement by Penance and the branches that were reducible to the same For Pacianus Paraenesi ad Poenitentiam speaking expresly of this mater expresses no more But when the Empire was Christian and the Church became ingraffed into the State then was the Rule inlarged to all crimes that the Laws of the State made capital to which in point of conscience those that are infamous by Civil Law are not inferiour though being not so pernicious to the world they are not by Civil Law punished with death The Reformation of Ecclesiastical Law intended here under Edward VI. hath taken notice of these terms As for the Presbyterians that would so fain be authorized by the State to swagger domineer over the consciences of their poor Neighbors that they have not been ashamed to submit the Original power of the Church to an appeal to the secular which is in English to let Parliament men live as they list so themselves might be inabled to do what they listed with litle ones to give them the power of the Church is to destroy the Church the power whereof they pretend not to exercise to the curing of sin but onely to the abolishing of scandall which the Church never pretended to abolish but by curing the sinne And yet they must give me leave to ask further either how that conscience can be cured of sinne that is not wounded with it or how it can be wounded with it that is bound to believe the pardon of sinne before repentance So necessary it is that they be required to disclaim the remission of sinne and the opinion of saving faith without supposing repentance and the same to be procured by the Keys of the Church before we suppose them to be a Church CHAP. XI The Unction of the sick pretendeth onely bodily health upon supposition of the cure of sinne by the Keyes of the Church Objections answered The Tradition of the Church evidenceth the same BEfore I leave this point I am here to consider what Ecclesiasticall power it is and how well grounded which the Church of Rome pretendeth to exercise in extream Unction so called because it belongeth to the sick in extremity and being accounted by them in the number of the seven Sacraments is applyed unto the sick over and above the Sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist The question of the Sacraments wherein the nature of them consisteth and by consequence how many of them there are I wholly set aside from the present discourse Because I conceive it will be determined more briefly upon more setled grounds all at once when I shall have discovered what powers they are which the Church indeed exerciseth by those actions which are or which may be pretended to be Sacraments But it is plain enough that the Church of Rome pretendeth also to exercise the power of the Keys in extream unction because according to the words of S. James afore quoted they assign the effect of it to be the remission of sinne On the contrary they who by the promise of bodily health to be restored to the sick upon the unction which the Apostle prescribeth do gather that the whole office there commanded was temporary as only intended for those ages when the miraculous grace of healing was in force in the Church by consequence do not admit any office to be incharged or any power estated upon the Church by it That which hath been premised to show that the circumstances of the Apostles words together with the originall and generall practice of the Church argueth aloud his intent to concern the exercise of the Keyes of the Church and the power of them towards those that are in danger of death ingageth my resolution to be this That the unction of the sick together with the prayers of the Church for the recovery of their bodily health which Christianity alloweth not without praying principally for the health of the soul is no way commanded by S. James but as an appertenance or an appendant to the exercise of the power of the Keyes in reconciling the sick to the Church whereupon the prayers thereof become due and therefore without further promise of remission of sinne or grace then that generall promise which the injoyning of prayer for the sick presupposeth The reason of this assertion is now to be deduced out of the Scriptures supposing for grounds those things which hitherto have been setled When our Lord sent his Disciples to preach the Gospel and to do those works that might witnesse them to be the Disciples of him that was sent by God it is said Mark VI. 13. That they cast out many Devils and annointed many sick with oyl and healed them Now it is evident that the miracles of the Apostles as did their Masters tended to one generall purpose by bodily cures to intimate the cure of sinne and the recovery of life and health to the soul which our Lord pretended to bring and tender them though by his works convincing them that he was the Messias whom they expected to bring them deliverance from their bodily enemies and the happinesse of injoying freely the Land promised by their Fathers Whereby we may see what consideration those Writers of Controversies have of the Scriptures that ground the unction of the sick which they will have to be a Sacrament of the New Testament upon this action of the Apostles when as the Gospel though now in preaching by the Apostles as well as our Lord yet was not established till his death past and accepâ—ed by God and by his resurrection declared to be accepted as the ratification of that ambassage of reconcilement and peace which he came to publish Far more discreet is that which the Council of Trent hath said that being intimated by S. Mark it is published by S. James At least if we understand the ground whereupon we maintain that the cure of sin is intimated by that bodily health which S. Mark relateth to have been restored by the Apostles For so indeed it is The bodily cures which the Apostles then did seemed to intimate that the imbracing and undertaking of Christianity is from Christs death forwards in consideration thereof the cure of the soul and the restoring of it from death to life Which if it be so then hath the Church no further power in the pardoning or abolishing of sinne then the absolute
they shall be forgiven them For sinnes cannot be forgiven without profession of amendment In which sentence this discretion is to be that we confesse daily and light sinnes to one anothers equalls believing that they are cured by their daily prayers But open the uncleannesse of greater leprosie to the Priest according to the Law and see them reconciled at his discretion how and how long he orders This is the very sense that I give the Apostles according to that strait communion Christians then held with Christians as members of the Church Why not rely upon the advice and prayers of Christians as Christians who are commanded to procure the salvation of Christians next their own in matters whereof they may be thought capable Therefore those sins which S. James directs the Priests to pray for are such as for the weight of them must resort to the Keyes of the Church for their cure But when Bede when Pope Innocent allows all Christians to anoint themselves or theirs with consecrated ovl when the Sermon de Tempore commands them to anoint their bodies when the Book de rectitudine Catholicae conversationis directs them to send for it from the Church it is manifest that they speak of Unction alone whereas S. James speaks of Unction joyned with the Keyes of the Church and that the Priests office is required in that case It is also manifest that Pope Innocent calls that unction a Sacrament which Christians give themselves which though he refuses Penitents yet those whom the Priest shall have given the Communion to could not be refused it Which referres remission of sinne to the Keyes of the Church but the hope of bodily health to the unction with prayer such as the case requires In the Penitentiall of Theodore of Canterbury thus it was read according to Buchardus his collection XVIII 14. Ab infirmis in periculo mortis positis per Presbyteros pura inquirenda est confessio peccatorum non tamen illis imponenda quantitas poenitentiae sed innotescenda cum amicorum orationibus studiis elemosynarum pondus poenitentiae sublevandum Ut si fortè migraverint ne obligati excommunicatione alieni vel ex consortio veniae fiant Aquo periculo si divinitus ereptus convaluerit poenitentiae modum à suo confessore impositum diligenter observet Et ideò secundùm Canonicam authoritatem ne illis â—anua pietatis clausa videntur orationibus consolationibus Ecclesiasticis sacrâ cum unctione olei animati juxta statuta sanctorum Patrum communione vietici reficiantur Of the sick that are in danger of death a clear confession of sins is to be demanded by the Priests yet is not the quantity of Penance to be imposed upon them but to be notified and the waight of it to be eased with the Prayers of their friends and zeal in giving alms That if they chance to depart they be not as bound by excommunication strangers and without the participation of paradox From which danger if God save him and he recover let him diligently observe that measure of Penance which his Confessor iâ—â—posed And therefore according to the authority of the Canons that the door of pity seem not shut upon them being comforted with the prayers and consolations of the Church with the holy ointing of oyl let them according to the constitutions of the Holy Fathers be refreshed with the communion of the Eucharist The same Burchardus XVIII 11. quotes that which follows out of the decrees of Pope Eusebius cap. X. in whose decretals now extant which Isidorus Mercator is thought to have forged I find it not But he who observes how proper the order which he prescribes in the case is to that which the former passage prescribed in that case may perhaps have reason to thinke that it is out of the same Penitentiall of Theodore and that the passage premised is the very order to which he referres Si quis poenitentiam petens dum sacerdos venerit fuerit officio linguae prinatus constitutum est ut si idonea testimonia habuerit quod ipse paenitentiam petisset ipse per motus aliquos suae voluntatis aliquod signum facere potest sacerdos impleat omnia sicut supra circa aegrotum poenitentiam scriptum est id est orationis dicat ungat eum sancto oleo Eucharistiam ei det post quam objerit ut caeteris fidelibus ei subministret If a man that demands Penance while the Priest is in coming be deprived of the office of his tongue it is decreed that if he have competent witnesse that he had demanded Penance and he by some motion is ablo to make some sign of his will the Priest fully do all that is written afore about the sick under Penance That is say the Prayers and anoint him with the consecrated oyl and give him the Eucharist and when he is dead do service for him as for other believers By these remarkable passages you see that even when Penance and the Unction both were ministred and prescribed to be ministred by the Priest bodily health was expected from the Unction remission of sinnes from the Keyes of the Church How much more having showed by Pope Innocent and venerable Bede and others that the anointing of themselves and theirs was referred to particular Christians is there reason to presume that this was done in case when there was no question of binding and loosing sinne by the Keyes of the Church We have lately published at Paris a Leter of Amulo Bishop of Lions under Carolus Calvus next successor to Agobardus concerning some forged reliques pretending that fits of convulsions and Epilepsies were stirred at the presence of them for evidence that they were cured by them as true reliques To which he saith Si autem languores aliqui ac debilitates accidunt juxta Evangelicum Apostolicum praeceptum praesto habet unusquisque ut inducat Presbyteros Ecclesiae orent super cum ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini oratio fidei salvabit infirmum But if any sicknesse or infirmity happen it is ready for every man according to the precept of the Gospell and Apostle to bring in the Priests of the Church that they may pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick Here because the occasion is publick and notorious to the Church the Prayers of the Priest are directed though without reference to the ministery of the Keyes Certainly Proculus the Christian that cured Antoninus Son of Severus the Emperour by anointing with oyle according to Tertullian ad Scapulam IV. did it not as a Priest which he did to an Infidel but as a private Christian having hope in God by himself to make his presence in the Church appear Onely this difference we find that whereas Proculus did this as a simple Christian indowed with one of those miraculous graces whereby God manifested
his presence in the Church at the beginning of Christianity Afterwards it was provided that the oyl should be consecrated by the Bishop with the Prayers of the Church in virtue whereof whither applyed by the Priests or by private Christians there might be hope that it might operate S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XXXII Eth. comparing the entertaining of the Apostles at home there mentioned with obeying their successors in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For both this Table is farre more precious and pleasant then that and this light which all know who anointing themselves with oyl seasonably and with faith have avoided diseases S. Austine de Civ XXII 8. Hipponensem quandam virginem scio cum se oleo perunxisset cui pro illa orans Presbyter lacrymas suas instillaverat mox à daemonio fuisse sanatam I know a certain maid of Hippo hauing anointed her selfe with oyl in which the Priest praying for her had dropt his tears was straight cured of a Devil Here is nothing but the cure of the body by consecrated oyl only that the Priest who gave it the maid prayed for her when he gave her it Therefore when Hilarion cured the Son in law and daughter of Constantia with oyl we are to understand the consecrated oyl with which the hinds and shepheards of Aegypt cured themselves of the bitings of Serpents by his direction Hieron in Hilarione Nor did Malachias in S. Bernard pretend any more thereby then bodily cure Therefore I do not marvail that Innocent I. should speak of unction without Penance who seems expresly to grant that sick persons should anoint themselves with that oyl which the Church should send them for that purpose To wit upon supposition that they need not the Keyes of the Church for the cure of their sinnes For Frier Thomas of Walden de Sacram. Tomo II. cap. penult understandeth him as indeed his words impart if you offer them no violence and the practice of the practice of Egypt who are said to have sent it to the sick and of the Greek Church in giving it to those that are well seems to imply to wit that as when the oblations of those who cannot be present at Church are received they are partakers â—of the benefit of those prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with because they are thereby acknowledged to belong to the communion of the Church So the sending of that unction which they apply to themselves importeth the blessing of the Church to go along with their Prayers which it is used with Thus much for certain when the Greeks contend that this unction belongs also to those that are well as the complement of their Penance arguing from the act of the Apostles who anointed those to whom they preached repentance and allowing it to the sick as that which for the present may be applyed unto them when as the exigent of their case will not allow them to perform Penance as you may see by Arcudius V. 4. they do clearly enough express the reason which I give CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimonial causes Mariage of one with one insolubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church IN the next place we are to consider what Interess the Church hath in the Mariages of Christians And that without granting Mariage to be one of the Sacraments of the Church or any thing implying what a Sacrament is and by consequence how many there are But yet supposing for disputations sake that it were a Sacrament that is not supposing the contrary but demanding nothing but that which must be granted whither it be so or not that our discourse may proceed Two things I suppose the one as proved in due place That the Church is by Gods Law a society which all Christians are bound to have communion with And that God hath given a peculiar Law concerning the Mariage of one with one and that indissoluble to all Christians For upon supposition hereof all the interest of the Church in Matrimoniall causes standeth Which is therefore now to be proved thence inforcing that whatsoever grows questionable among Christians concerning Mariage upon the account of that Law which is proper to Christianity belongs to the Church to determine For it is not my purpose to say that Christian States have nothing to do in Matrimoniall causes But that the Interess of the State and of the Church though not distinguishable by the persons when the fame persons belong to both are to be disâ—inguished by the causes and grounds and considerations upon which they arise and stand So that what comes from a reason concerning civill society belong to the State what from the Law which Christians onely acknowledge to the Church to limite and determine If then any difference arise among Christians concerning Mariage that supposeth not some provision brought in by the Gospel I will not undertake that the determination of it belongs to the Church by Gods Law On the contrary therefore that which becomes questionable upon that account I challenge to belong to the Church to determine that is to those that have right to determine on behalfe of the Church For I appeal to the common sense and experience of the world to evidence this That when any Law is given to any society or body founded upon reasons which afore the founding of it were not in force there will of necessity fall out new Cases in which it will be questionable whether the reason of the Law is to take place or not And let the Christian world be witnesse whether it be not requisite to acknowledge that if Christianity come from God then God hath provided a course to secure Christians in conscience that their Mariages are not against the will of God Therefore according to Aristoles reason the law which God hath given Christians concerning Mariage being generall and the cases which mens particular occasions produce being infinite and so not determined by the Law it followeth that they are referred by God to the determination of that society that is of those that act in behalfe of it with right to conclude it which God hath founded upon the acknowledgement of those Lawes whereof this is one In the first place then I am not afraid to undertake that the Law of the Mariages of Christians that they be of one with one and indissoluble is given by our Lord to his Church and maintained by it For I am confident to make evidence out of that which is received by all Christians together with the premises that it could neither have come into the world but by Christianity nor have been maintained so inviolable as it hath been by the Canons of the Church I say then that it is impossible for any reasonable man to imagine that so difficult a Law as for all men to be tied
chargeable with adultery when the wife maries again being not put away for adultery why is he chargeable with it that put her away for adultery If because he maries again not putting his wife away for adultery putting her away for adultery why is he chargeable with it The difficulty will be Then is the knot of wedlock tied to the one party and loose to the other which seems a knot more indissoluble then that of wedlock but is indeed none at all if we distinguish between the metaphor of a knot tied and the obligation signified by it For though the act of consent to the contract of wedlock is the act of two parties whereof a third that is God is depositary to discharge the innocent and to charge the guilty yet the bond or obligation which is contracted by it is answerable severally by each party in the judgement of God And is there the same reason that God should call him to account for adultery who thinks himselfe free of that contract which he stood to till his party transgressed it as her that gave him cause to think himselfe free by transgressing it The difficulty then rests in the meaning of S. Paul when he châ—rgeth the wife not to depart from her Husband If she do to abidâ— unmaried or to be reconciled to her Husband And the Husband not to put away his wife 1 Cor. VII 12. And that having before charged maried people not to part even for devotion but for a time for fear of temptation by concupiscense For can it then be imagined that he allows them to part upon any occasion but that of adultery Therefore those that are parted for adultery he forbids to marry again And these are the Texts that have moved S. Jerome Epist XLVII to be of this mind But S. Austine further expounding the Sermon in the mount upon this supposition as he himselfe professes in the beginning of his books de adultrinis conjugiis written expresse to maintain it and desiring to show how our Lords Law injoyns the same with his Apostles imagines that our Lord might mean spirituall fornication or adultery according to which the Psalme saies Thou hast destroyed all that commit fornication against thee when he gave it Which sense compriseth all sinne that carieth with it a construction of departing from our Covenant with God both in truth and according to S. Austine de Sermone domini in monte I. 16. Whereupon the Mileritane Canon XVII speaks thus Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam disciplinam ueque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa à marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant auâ— sibi reconcilientur Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur In qua causà legem Iâ—perialem petendam promulgari It seemed good that according to the discipline of the Gospel and the Apostles neither he that is dimissed by his wife nor she that is dimissed by her husband be wedded to another but remain so or be reconciled to one another which if they neglect that they be put to Penance and that request be made for an Imperial Law to be published in the case Where alleging the Gospel and S. Paul both it is plain the Canon proceeds upon the opinion of S. Austine For he was at this Council and in all probability had the penning of the Canons That which moved them to be of this opinion I confesse moves me to be against it I cannot be perswaded that S. Paul in this place and our Lord in the Gospel speak both to one and the same purpose All subjects of the Romane Empire when S. Paul writ had power to leave their wives or their husbands at pleasure without giving the Law account But supposing them Christians were they not to give God account were they not to give the Church account Certainly if they maried again they must give the Church account because our Lord hath said He that leaveth his wife but for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery For of adultery account is to be given the Church And truly who parts with a wife it is great odds does it out of a desire to mary another which all the Church agrees he cannot do unlesse she be an adulteresse part of it sayes further though she be he cannot do it But if he mary not another but part with his wife he must give God account whether he be bound to give the Church account or not And this account S. Paul instructs how to give He will not have Christians to part bed and bord much less to repudiate to part families to send one another a way with that which they brought but if they will needs try how good it is living unmarried he would have them know that they could not mary elsewhere because of our Lords Law which in case of fornication he silently excepteth For to me it seemeth manifest that our Lord in case of fornication provideth for the reparation of the party wronged whose bed and issue is concerned restraining the divorce which the law allowed onely to the transgression of mariage inâ—cted by the institution of Paradise when two continue not one flesh But S. Paul for the conscience of particular Christians upon what terms they may or ought to forbear â—ohabitation to wit so as they mary not again Which is exhortation enough to set aside animosities and return to bed and bord again S. Austine and Venerable Bede upon the Gospel following him confesse that according to their interpretation our Lord permits to part not for the fornication which the other party hath done but for that which himselfe may do To wit which by the company of an ill disposed yoke-fellow he may be moved to do So divorce according to this opinion is grounded upon the precept of the Gospel If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and is that which the Church of Rome at this day maintaineth by the XXVI Session of the Council of Trent Can. VIII and that as I think according to S. Paul onely that he leaves it to the Conscience of particular Christians without interessing the Church the interest whereof I conceive cannot be excluded though S. Paul here provide not for it as Cardinall Bellarmine de Matrimoniâ— I. 14. disputeth But in case of adultery it never was nor ever could seem questionable so as S. Paul to decide it whither a man might so put away his wife or no all Civill Law that then was counting him accessory to the stain of his bed and issue that did not And thereupon the ancient Canons of the Church imposing penalties upon any of the Clergy who being allowed to dwell with their wives should indure an adulteresse And therefore I conclude that S. Paul though he allow not either husband or wife to part with wife or husband as to cohabitation without renouncing the bond of wedlock no not for the state of continence as S. Austine very well argues if not for continence then for no
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
Bishop above his Presbyters not to be derived from any agreement of the Church but from the appointment of the Apostles In the mean time suppoâ—â—ng the whole Church to agree in that which God had inabled them to agree in having not tied them to the contrary but having tied them to live in viâ—â—ble unity and communion all Churches with all Churches they that depart from this Unity upon this account shall bee no less Schismaâ—â—cks then had the Superiority of Bishops been setled by the Apostles This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XVIII The Apostles all of oequall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-â—minence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it SOme consideration I must now bestow upon that Position which derives a Monarchy over the Church from S. Peters priviledges For I make no scruple to grant that he was indeed the first and chief of the Apostles as he is reckoned in the Gospels Mat. X. 2. Mar. III. 16. Luk. VI. 14. and that in likelihood because he was the first in leaving all to adhere unto our Lord as the man to whom our Lords call is directed Luk. V. 4-11 though he was first brought to our Lord by bis brother Andrew as Philip once brought Nathanael that was not of the twelve John I. 41-46 so that this first call gave them acquaintance but made them not Apostles And from this beginning we may well draw the reason why S. Peter is alwaies the forwardest to answer our Lords demands and to speak in the name of his fellows Mat. XIV 28. XV. 25. XVI 16. XVII 24. XVIII 21. XIX 27. XXVI 33. Mar. VIII 29. X. 28. XI 21. XIV 29. Luk. VIII 45. IX 20. XII 41. XVIII 28. XXII 34. Joh. VI. 68. XIII 6. Act. I. 13. 15. II. 14. 37. IV. 8. which it would not become the reverence we owe the Apostles so impute to S. Peters sorwardnesse without acknowledging the ground of it being visible But these priviledges will not serve to make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles The stress lies upon Mat. XVI 16-19 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou arâ— the Christ the Son of the living God And Jesus answered and said to him Blessed art thou Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father in the heavens And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loose in the heaven And upon John XXI 15. 16 17. where S. Peter thrice professing to love Christ receives of him thrice the command of Feeding his sheep But will this serve the turn ever a whit more It must be either by virtue of the mater which our Lord sayes of or to S. Peter or by virtue of his saying it to S. Peter and to none else Against this later consideration I conceive I have provided by the premises For seeing there is a sufficient reason to be given otherwise why S. Peter answers before the rest when our Lord demand whom they acknowledge him to be the reply of our Lord addressed to him alone will give him no more then the precedence not the Soveraignty over the Apostles Which is still more evident in S. John because S. Peter having undertaken before the rest to stand to our Lord in the utmost of all his trialls had deserted him most shamefully of them all denying udder an oath to have any knowledge of him For it is not observed for nothing that he professes the love of Christ thrice Let S. Peter then be the Prince Apostle or the chiefe Apostle let him be if you please the Prince of the Apostles there will be found a wide distance between Princeps Apostolorum in Latine as some of the Fathers have called him and Soveraign over the Apostles When Augustus seized into â—is hand the soveraign Power of the Romane Empire nomine Principis as we read the beginning of Tacitus under the title of Prince He was well aware that the Title which he assumed did not necessarily proclaim him Soveraign which he deâ—â—red not to do As for the â—aâ—er of our Lords words those that fear where there is no fear wil have our Lord say that he buildeth his Church upon the Faith of S. Peter profâ—ssing our Lord to be Christ Or to point at himselfe when he saith Upon this Rock will I build my Church But what needs it Saith he any more to S. Peter then S. Paul saith to the Ephesians II. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Or S. John of the new Jerusalem Revel XXI 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations upon which were the names of the XII Apostles of the Lambe How then shall S. Peter be Soverâ—ign by virtue of an attribute common to him with the rest of the Apostles Some conceive that when our Lord proceeds to tell him that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church He meanâ— no more but that he will rescue his from death by raising them again But raising from death implies raising from sinne in the Old Testament expresses it in the New And the City of God which is the Church in the New Testament referrs to the City of Satan that oppugneth it And therefore The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Cannot signifie lesse then a promise that the Church shall continue till our Lords second coming to judgement notwithstanding the malice of Satan and his complices But S. Peter is not the onely foundation of it though no body else be named here Again our Lord gives S. Peter the Keyes of his Church here as in S. John he commands him to feed his flock But is the office of feeding Christs flock S. Peters peculiar Have not the Apostles the charge of it even from our Lord do they do it by virtue of S. Peters commission or by his appointment How are they Christs Apostles otherwise As for the Keyes of the Church they are given to S. Peter here they are given to the Twelve by the power of remitting and retaining sinnes as I have shewed John XX. 21. 22 23. by the power of binding and loosing they are given to the Church Mat. XVIII 18. And can any man make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles and over the Church by virtue of that which is no priviledge of his the rest of the Apostles and the Church being all indowed with it Hear we not what S. Luke saith Act. VIII 14. The Apostles
ground for Councils and for their authority which I have laid in the first Book nor bound the right of Civil and Ecclesiasticall Power in giving force to the acts of them which I reserve for the end of this third Bood But to evidence the constitution of them from whence their authority in the Church must proceed I maintain here from the premises that the originall constitution of the Church determineth the person of the Bishop to represent his respective Church in Council And that the constitution of Councils consisting of Bishops representing their respective Churches evidenceth the authority of Bishops in the same Which produceth the effect of obliging either the whole Church or that part which the Council representeth by the consent of Votes The act of the Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles Act. XV. was respective to the Churches of Jerusalem and Antiochia with those which were planted from thence by Paul and Barn 〈…〉 made by an authority sufficient to oblige the whole Church The El 〈…〉 concurred to the vote with the Apostles those that will be so ridicul 〈…〉 for Lay Elders of Presbyters But will never tell us how the V 〈…〉 Elders should oblige the Church of Antiochia and the plantations 〈…〉 y were the Elders who joyned with the Apostles from whom they could not be dis-joyned were able to oblige the whole Church And indeed there is no mention of them in the acts of chusing Matthias and the seven Deacons Acts I. VI. which acts concerned the whole Church And therefore there is appearance that the authority which they alwayes had in respect of the Church to be constituted was by that time known to be limited by the allowance and consent of the Apostles But when I granted that S. Paul seems to allow both the Romanes and the Corinthians to eat things sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures I did not grant that his authority could derogate from the act of the Apostles But that the act of the Apostles was not intended for the Churches represented at the doing of it As that which was done Act. XXI how great soever the authority might be that did it seems to extend no further then the occasion in hand That which remains then in the Scriptures agreeth perfitly well with the original practice of the whole Church It cannot be denied that there are here and there in the records of the Church instances evidencing the sitting of Presbyters in Council which I deny not must needs import the priviledge of voting But the reason of their appearing there appears so often to be particular by commission from their Bishops and to supply their absence that there is no means in the world to darken this evidence for the superiority of Bishops For can it possibly be imagined that the Bishop should alwaies represent his Church in all Councils without choice or other act to depute him were he no more then the first of the Presbyters Is it not evident that the whole Church alwaies took him for the person without whom nothing could be done in the Church which whither in Council or out of Council never dealt with his Church but by him alwayes with his Church by his means Now for the authority of Councils thus constituted though for peace sake and because an end must be had the resolution of all Councils must come from number of Votes which swayes the determinations of all Assemblies yet there is thereupon a respect to be had to the Provinces or parts of the Church which those that vote do represent unlesse we will impute it to blame to those that suffer wrong if they submit not themselves to the determinations of those whom themselves have more right to oblige This consideration resolves into the grounds of the dependence of lesse Churches upon greater Churches all standing in the likelihood of propagating Christianity out of greater Cities into the lesse and of governing the Church in unity by submitting lesse residences to greater rather then on the contrary Which is such a principle that all men of capacity will acknowledge but all would not stand convict of had not the Church admitted it in effect from their founders before they were convict of the effect of it by humane foresight Upon this supposition the Church cannot properly be obliged by the plurality of Bishops who all have right to vote in Council but by the greatnesse and weight of the Churches for whom they serve concurring to a vote And hereof there be many traces in the Histories of the Church when they mention the deputation of some few Bishops representing numerous Provinces which for distance of place or other peremptory hinderances could not be present to frequent as others For can this be a reasonable cause why they should be obliged by the votes of those who were present in greater number The true reason why the decrees of Councils have not alwaies had nor ought alwayes to have the force and effect of definitive sentences but of â—â—rong prejudices to sway the consent of the whole Because there was never any Council so truly Generall that all parts concerned were represented by number of Voâ—es proportionable to the interesse of the Churches for whom they serve For certainly greater is the interest of greater Churches Which case whenâ—oever it comes to passe those that are not content have reason to allege that they are not to be tied by the vote of others but by their own consent And therefore the nnity of the Church requireth that there be just presumption upon the mater of decrees that they will be admitted by those who concurre not to them as no lesse for their good then for the good of the rest of the Church In the mean time the pretense of the Popes infinite Power remaines inconsistent with the very pretenâ—e of calling a Council For why so much trouble to obtain a vote that shall signifie nothing without his consent his single sentence obliging no lesse These are the grounds of that Aristocraty in which the Church was originally governed by the constitution of the Apostles unlesse we will think that a constant order viâ—â—ble in all the proceedings thereof could have come from the voluntary consâ—nt of Christendom not prevented by any obligation and drawing every part of it towards their severall interests which makes the obligation of Councils and their decrees harder to be obtained but when once obtained more firm and sure as not tending to destroy the originall way of maintaining Unity by the free correspondence and consent of those who are concerned but to shorten the trouble of obtaining it And if this were understood by the name of the Hierarchy why should not the simplicity of Apostolical Christianity own it Now because the greatnesse of Churches depended by the ground laid upon the greatnesse of the Cities which was in some sorâ— ambulatory till it was setled by the rule of the Empire begun by Adriane and compleated by Constantine my meaning will
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
if the fourth Commandment be in force they cannot be obliged to keep the Lords day Is it not an even wager that not doubting the fourth Commandment to be in force as they are told they shall keep the Saturday which if it be in force they ought to keep rather then the Lords day which finding no reason for it because they are told none they will presently imagine to be a Popish custome I know there is one argument which is very plausible to induce well meaning Christians into that zeal which we see they have for the strict keeping of the Lords day which they call the Sabbath Because this opinion will oblige the world to exercise more works of godlinesse and to abstain from more of those debauches which Festivals occasion in vulgar people then otherwse To which for the present I will say onely this That having showed the truth to be as it is I can oblige all Christians to believe that Gods glory and the advancement of his service cannot be grounded well but upon the truth And therefore I may well demand their patience till I come by and by to show the ground of the mistake which they are carried away with to think that Gods glory and service is not more plentifully provided for by the Laws and customes of the Catholick Church then by strict keeping the Sabbath upon a false ground which hindring the effect of those Laws by consequence hinders Gods service But now all this being setled what is there remaining to alledge why Christians should be bound to keep the Lords day but the act of the Apostles by virtue whereof it came into force among all Christians in all Churches For it would be too ridiculous to allege that it is grounded upon those Scriptures whereby it appeareth that it was kept under the Apostles either as a reason sufficient or as distinct from the authority of the Apostles For these Scriptures being the Scriptures of the Apostles we can derive no authority from them but that which we first suppose in the Apostles I suppose here that no man will say that our Lords appearing to his Disciples after his resurrection upon that day was enough to make it a Law or evidence that it was so made unlesse his Apostles could testifie that he appeared to that purpose As for the rest if it may by circumstance appear that under the Apostles they did assemble to the service of God upon the Lords day will it therefore follow that all Chistians are bound to do the same Or can any more then this appear by that which I alledged out of the Apostles writings If there could the writings of the Apostles being their act as much as any act whereby they could declare an intent to oblige the Church there will be nothing to bind it to keep the Lords day but the authority of the Apostles But he that will give his own common reason leave to speak shall hear it say that it is not their words that oblige us to it but the originall and universall custome of the Church evidencing that they used to celebrate that day with an intent to introduce the obligation of it into the Church For of this original and universal custome having as yet found no question made on any side I hold it superfluous to take pains to make evidence of that which no man questions When Justine the Martyr presenting to the Empire an Apology for all Christans declareth that their custome was to assemble on the Lords day to serve God with the offices of Christianity which there he describeth had it not been to abuse himself and the Empire to declare that for the custome of all Christians which was indeed the custom of some but of others not Whither Easter was to be kept upon the fifteenth day of the first Moon upon which our Lord suffered or upon the next Lords day upon which he rose again was a dispute in the Church as ancient as the Apostles The former custome having been delivered to the Churches of Asia by S. John the later to the West by S. Peter and S. Paul But what ground could there be for this dispute had not the first day of the week been honoured and observed above the rest in regard of our Lords rising again Certainly the Eâ—ionites were one of the ancientest sects thar rose up against the Church and they as Eusebius Eccles Hist III. 27. keeping the Sabbath as the Jews and because the Jews kept it observing also the Lords day because the Christians kept it It is true that among the Eastern Christians the Saturday was observed for the service of God many ages after condescension to the Jews in regard whereof the observation of Moses law was in use after Christ in some parts of the Church more in some lesse was quite out of date But that is no argument that the Lords day was not kept when the Sabbath was kept to them who see S. Paul keep the Lords day Act. XX. 7. within the time of compliance with the Jewes For the offices which God is served with by the Church are pleasing to him at all times as well as in all places whereas the keeping of the Sabbath upon any day but a Saturday would have been a breach of his Law For when the other Festivals of the Jews are called Sabbaths in the Law that is not to say that the Sabbath was kept upon them for I have showed you two severall measures of rest due upon them by the Law but that they participated much of the nature of the Sabbath and therefore may be called with an addition such or such Sabbaths but not absolutely the Sabbath Therefore when Christians afterwards continued the custome of serving God upon the Sabbath that is the Saturday it is to be understood that they served God with the offices of Christianity not with the rest of the Jews Sabbath If it be further demanded whither the obligation of the Lords day do not depend upon the precepâ— of the Sabbath so that it may be called with an addition the Sabbath of Christians though not absolutely the Sabbath because that nâ—me is possessed already by the Saturday in the language of all Christians as well as Jews till men affected an abuse in the name to bring their mistake into mens minds To this I answer that if the Lords day had no dependance upon the precept of the Sabbath we could not give a reason why one day of seven is observed For the choice of the number could not come by chance And I cautioned afore that the Resurrection of Christ was as sufficient a reason why the Church should serve God on the Sunday as the creation of the world was why the Synagogue should serve God on the Saturday But this dependance was not immediate because I showed also that this was not enough to introduce the obligation upon us The act of the Apostles intervening was the means to make the obligation necessary
and legall whereof before the ground onely was reasonable But I do not mean this dependance to be the effect of the fourth Commandment onely which prescribeth onely bodily rest as I have showed but of these appendences of it whereby the Assemblies of the Jews and their sacrifices for that day are inacted For because they were to serve God upon the Sabbath it was certainly reasonable in regard of our Lords resurrection that Christians should serve God upon the first day of the Week If any man in this regard will call the Lords day the Christians Sabbath or the like I find no fault with it nay I find it so called by the Christians of Aethiopia in Scaliger VII de Emend Temporum Provided he conne my opinion that thanks which it deserves for leaving no further room to unstable spirits to imagine as some great Masters have done that it is in the power of Churches or of Christian Powers â—rotecting them to chuse another day of seven or of less then seven for Gods publick service For not being out of the reach of such power immediately by virtue of the fourth Commandment as I and they both have shewed it is beyond the reaâ—h of it by virtue of the Apostles authority and the act of it And now it is time to declare the sense of the Catholick Church derived from the doctrine and writings of the Apostles to be this concerning the times of Gods service That the offices thereof being alwayes acceptable to God and seasonable so that they be orderly done it is the duty of the Church to provide that they be as frequently celebrated as the occasions of the world will allow not by particular Christians alone but at the common assemblies of the Church Whereby it may appear how injurious and prejudicial to the service of God the zele of those is who challenging the whole Sunday for the service of God by virtue of the fourth Commandement seem thereupon to take it for granted that there ought to be no order for the publick service of God upon other Festivals and times of Fasting appointed by the Church nor which is more for the dayly celebration of divine service in the Church There hath been a pretense indeed that when the fourth Commandement saith Six dayes thou shalt labor and do all that thou hast to do It forbiddeth the Church to give any Rule of forbearing bodily labor for the exercise of Gods service But so ridiculous that even these who have the conscience to hold the conclusion have not the face to maintain the premises That form of speech manifestly importing no more than this That the present Law requires no more than keeping the first day of the week seeing it is manifest that by other Laws God intended to proceed further and to except other dayes from the bodily labor of his then people for his service Thereupon it is manifest that the Synagogue proceeded likewise to except other dayes for which there rose occasions for the like purpose And truly those who think it a burthen to the duty of working for mens living that there should be an Order for the dayly serving of God in the Church having all them to attend it that are not prevented of it by necessary occasions may look upon the Jews and blush to consider that they as S. Jerome Epiphanius and Justine the Martyr assure us should assemble themselves thrice a day in their Synagogues to curse our Lord Christ which their own Constitutions not mentioning do provide for the service of God nevertheless but that it should be counted superstitious for Christians to meet for Gods service in publick unless it be on the Lords day Certainly the practice of the primitive Christians at Jerusalem signifies no such thing all the contribution there raised tending to no other purpose but that the Church might hold together in the doctrine of the Apostles and the service of God and celebration of the Eucharist Though they went also into the Temple and served God with the Jews whom they then hoped and intended to reduce unto Christianity But I will referr my self in this point as in that which follows to that which I have said in my Book of the service of God at the Assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII having received from no hand any maner of satisfaction in the least of it Whereby it will appear that the Church hath power to limit the times of Gods service upon this ground Because the occasions of the world suffer not Christians alwayes to attend it which so oft as the Church shall finde it possible they are bound to do And that the use of this power as it is justified by the practice of the whole Church so it is necessary to the advancement of godlinesse according to Christianity Nor can the effect thereof be superseded without hindring the service of God whatsoever the strict keeping of the Lords day may contribute to the same Those times of persecution succeeded to the primitive Church wherein it is altogether admirable to consider how it was possible to reduce the whole body of Christians to an orderly course of so frequent service of God as appeareth The difficulties of assembling themselves being so great as under persecution must needs be Therefore when the exercise of Christianity was free and peaceable when all Nations and Languages upon their conversion to Christianity had made it their business and set aside means by which the service of God might be daily celebrated and all men have opportunity to frequent the same so farr either as their occasions would give leave or their hearts to God minde them to frame their occasions to take away this order and to destroy the means of executing it as either superstitious or superfluous what is it else but that curse which the Jews in their Synagogues would have wished Christianity when they met to curse Christ And if all difference of dayes for the service of God being taken away by Christianity so that no office of it is at any time unacceptable as the offices of Judaism were abominable not upon their legal days And the Apostles have notwithstanding for orders sake that there might be a certain time inviolably dedicated to that purpose set aside the first day of the week for it shall wee question whether it was they that instituted the solemnity of Easter Holy-days and consequently of Whitsuntide in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord and the coming of the Holy Ghost or not For all the Lords dayes in the year have the mark that stands on them from that one on which our Lord rose again And since wee know that the difference about keeping Easter is as ancient as the Apostles and that there could have been no ground for it had not the Lords day born that mark at that time the question being onely when the Fast should end and the celebration of Easter come on can any doubt remain that the solemnity of
had further to learne to make their Praises of God and prayers to God the more Christian He that understandeth this case by the Scriptures of the new Testament must conclude that all preaching is to make men Christians that the praises of God and prayers to God comprehending the Eucharist are the exercise of Christianity The one the next meanes to attaine salvation the other onely the meanes to attaine that meanes So that this dispute also resolveth into that of my second Book whether we are justified by believing that we are justified and predestinate Or by professing and living as Christians For supposing the state of salvation to be obtained by so believing and that so as not to be forfeited any more It is very reasonable to run infinitely after Sermons till a man find himselfe setled in so believing But so that then he shall believe that which he can have no reason supposing the Scriptures to believe Nor shall the frequenting of Sermons serve to show any resonable motive to believe But the very act of hearing a man speake out of the Pulpit by the glasse must be taken for the meanes appointed by God by which when he sees his time he will determine the Elect to believe leaving the Reprobate in their unbeliefe though perhaps after they have slept out more Sermons then the other have done So the opus operatum of hearing Sermons according to this opinion succeeds instead of the opus operatum of hearing Masses according to the corrupt practice of the Church of Rome And in this chang the worke of Reformation according to this opinion must consist But then it will be necessarily consequent that they who have attained this faith give over hearing sermons for the future and not onely Sermons but prayers and all other offices of Gods service and assemblies for the same according to the opinion of that Sect that now thinks themselves above ordinances Which Sect before ever it appeared I had understood by a person of integrity and knowledge that there was a difference of opinion among those who frequented and maintayned Sermons besides the order of the Ecclesiasticall Lawes in England Some thinking it a meanes of faith to confer of the sermon after it is don others laughing at so silly a mistake as thinking to attaine the state of salvation by reason and freewill not by Gods meer Grace Whereby it appeareth that whosoever as I doe makes the preaching of the Gospell that is not speaking out of a Pulpit but showing the reasons which Gods word proposeth to move men to be true Christians the meanes which Gods spirit useth to bring a man to the state of Grace is obliged to grant that it is no otherwise the meanes to maintaine a man in that state then as it is the meanes to maintaine him a good Christian And that his Christianity in the first place consisting in the publike service of God to which he becomes ingaged by being baptized into the Church The offices thereof are the immediate meanes of salvation to which as well as to the offices concerning other men and our selves all teaching of Christians immediately tendeth as all preaching to unbelievers at a distance Now let no man think that I take any pleasure in censuring the proceedings of forraine Churches which I could willingly have passed over in silence had not a pernicious affectation of being like them caryed those that liked not this order to destroy the very being of the English Church out of a desire to change the vertue of it for their oversight For now I must say whatsoever offence it may cause that when it had been well pleaded that the communion of the Eucharist ought to be restored in both kinds with the service of God in a known language And that order ought to be taken that preaching might be frequented for the instruction of the people to infer thereupon for a Law that there be no orders for holding any assembly of the Church without Preaching was to cure the abuse of Private Masses by degrading the Eucharist from the preeminence that it holdeth above all other offices that God can be served with by a Christian And that without colour from the scripture without precedent from any practice of the Church There have been indeed pretenses among us that the word which giveth efficacy to the Sacraments is the word preached Meaning thereby a sermon spoken out of the Pulpit And from hence hath proceeded the affectation of Christning Sermons as if that were the word whereof S. Austine saith Accedat verbum ad elementum fit Sacramentum Nay this preaching afore meate in a long discourse instead of thanksgiving what is it but a mark of that sense which they give S. Paul when he saith that the creature is sanctified by the word of God prayer for the food of Christians 1 Tim. IV. 5 And when Sermons are so affectedly called the Meanes To wit of saving us Is it not manifest that they attribute vnto Sermons that which S. Paul Rom. X. 8-15 and the apostles elsewhere attribute to the preaching of the Gospell whereby a man becomes convict that he ought to become a Christian without which no Christian will grant any man can be saved Whereby we may see what consequence slight mistakes in the very signification of the words may and doe produce For having showed an evident difference between preaching the Gospell to those who as yet believe not and teaching those that are become Christians the further knowledg of their Christianity I may take for granted that it is a mistake when the difference is not made between preaching to an assembly of Christians and declaring the Gospell to unbelievers whom the Apostles could not deale with upon any supposition of Christianity but onely upon the force of those motives which they showed them to imbrace it to whom therefore the onely meanes of their salvation was the knowledge of those motives And though all Christians when they come among unbelievers are bound to preach Christ to them that is to declare unto them the reasons why they ought to be Christians so far as they are able to doe it without prejudice of Christianity Yet to preach it as the Apostles preached it planting with all the Church in which God should be served according to Christianity is that which no private man can doe without authority received by the Church from the Apostles From which authority all that is afterwards don in serving God by the Churches so planted must receive that warrant upon which Christians may ground themselves that it is agreeable to the will of God And upon these termes it is to be granted that sermons preached in the assemblies of Christians are the meanes of their salvation because that the allowance of the Church groundeth a presumption that they are according to Christianity But if this be wanting though it is not necessary that they should be contray to Gods word yet because there is no
answer to the Jesuites Challenge Pag. 308-326 that the spoiling of Hell is attributed by the Fathers to the rising of our Lord Christ from the grave whereby the law of death was voided Which if it be true what Tradition can there remaine in the Church that our Lord Christs soule should harrow hell and ransacke it of the soules of the Fathers there detained or in the Verge of it Saint Basil de Sp. S. cap. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How then do we go down to Hell aright Imitating the buriall of Christ by Baptisme For the bodies of these who are Baptized are as it were buried in the water Saint Chrysostome in 1 ad Cor. Hom XL. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For to be baptized and first to sink then come up againe is an Embleme of going down into Hell and coming up againe And truly if the force of Christs death in voiding the dominion of death stood by the merit of his sufferings Then was the descent of his flesh into the grave of force to that effect without any descent further of his soul into the lower parts thereof And if the death of Christ and his continuing in death for the time that God had appointed was declared by God to be accepted by him to that effect then was his rising from death his triumph over hell and death whereby the title of his rising againe being declared it must needs appear that neither death nor hell nor the devil hath any more interest in Christians Nor is it so strange that the descent of Christ into hell should be mentioned by the Apostles Creed after his buriall if it signify not the descent of his soul as it would be that it should be left out of other Creeds if it did signify that it is necessary to the salvation of all so to believe For neither is it expressed in the Creed of Nicaea or Constantinople nor was it found in that which the Church of Rome or that which the Churches of the East used saith Ruffinus upon the Creed who notwithstanding expoundeth it because the Church of Aquileia which he belonged to used it Which had the signification of it been a distinct truth necessary to the salvation of all to be believed the Churches could by no meanes have connived at one another in not delivering it And truly seeing the dominion of death intimating the second death to which those who belong not to the New Testament are accursed is signified in the Old Testament by going under the earth The signification of going down into Hell in the Creed can by no meanes be thought superfluous though our Lord neither went thither to rescue the Fathers soules nor to triumph over the Powers of darknesse For as thereby the common curse from whence we are redeemed so is also the reason and meanes of our deliverance from it intimated And seeing there is appearance from that which hath been said that the divell himself did not understand the secret of Gods intent to dissolve his interest in mankind by the death of Christ untill it appeared by what right our Lord resumed his body which he had Laid downe this being declared in the other world by his rising again and in signe thereof the soules of the saints that slept rising againe with him and resuming their bodies there is no reason why the mention of his resurrection following immediately upon the descent into Hell in the Creed should not sufficiently expresse that triumph which this declaration importeth Which triumph being effected by the Godhead though in his flesh it will be no marvaile to meet with some sayings of the Fathers that ascribe it to his Godhead Now the common doctrine of the Schoole maketh it no matter of Faith to believe the descent of Christs soule into that Hell where the damned were but onely to the Verge of it where the souls of the Fathers were It is enough with them that the effect of this Power reached to the place of the damned Cardinall Bellarmine when he published his controversies held it probable that the soul of Christ descended to the place of the damned But upon better consideration in the review of them thinks that the other opinion of Thomas and the rest of the Schoole is to be followed And yet it is not possible to distinguish between this Verge and the lowest hell by any Tradition of the Church Nay Durandus goes so farre out of their rode as to maintaine that the soul of Christ went not to hell that is to Lymbus but onely by the effect of it in making the soules of the Fathers happy Which is in my opinion declaring to them the reason of their happinesse And the opinion of Suarez the Jesuite is remarkable That taking an Article of Faith for a truth necessary for the salvation of all Christians to be known the descent of Christ into hell is no Article of Faith For that is not very necessary for single Christians to know And for that cause perhaps it is not in the Nicene Creed which whoso believeth believes enough to save him And that perhaps for this cause some Fathers expounding the Creed to the People make no mention of it In III. Disput XLIII Sect. II. and IV. I may adde for the advantage of my opinion That if it be not necessary for single Christians to believe much lesse is it necessary for the Church as a body to believe it For those things which the Church believeth as a body it imposeth to be believed upon them who are of the body But it cannot be reasonable for the Church as a body to impose upon the members thereof the beliefe of that which it is not necessary to their salvation as single Christians to believe And therefore allowing the conscientiousnesse of S. Augustine who having presumed that he who believes not the descent is no Christiane doubts not that by the descent as many were delivered as Gods secter justice thought fit Epist XCIX And of Saint Jerome in Eph. II. allowing some work of God to be managed by it which we understand no more then what good our Lords death did the good Angels I allow also the reservedness of those of the Confession of Auspurg or of Suisse who acknowledging the literall sense of this Article find not themselves bound to maintaine for what reason it was I am not offended with those in the Church of England that assigne the triumph of our Lord for the reason of it But believing with Saint Gregory Nyssene in Pascha Resurrect Christi Epist ad Eustath that our Lord by the descent of his body into the grave abolished him that had the power of death by his soul made way for the thiefe into Paradise where it self was count this enough for the salvation of all Christians to be believed And therefore that the Church cannot impose upon them as the necessary meanes of their salvation to believe any more I do not intend to say much more
brother Satyrus as likewise Gregory Nazianzene for his brother Caesarius whome neverthelesse they suppose to be in happinesse Their words you may see there p. 188. To which he that will take the paines may adde all that Blâ—ndel hath collected in his second book of the Sibyls Cap. XLI of Epitaphes which pray for them whom they describe in happinesse For in short where there is hope that the deceased is among Gods Saints there is there doubt on the other side that he may have need of light and peace and refreshment And therefore the supposed Dionysius Eccl. Hierarch Cap. VII where he relateth the custome of praying for the remission of sins in behalfe of the dead relateth the singing of psalmes of thanks-giving at funeralls And S. Austine telleth how Euodius begun the CI. Psal when his mother was dead yet in consideration of the danger which every soule that dies is subject to prayeth for her as he had commanded Confess IX 12. In fine though custom made not the dâ—fference every where visible between Prayers for Saints and prayers for ordinary Christians yet was the common Faith of the Church a sufficient ground for both whatsoever descant private construction might make upon the plainsong of it Tertullian expecting the raigne of Christians upon earth for a thowsand yeares and thinking those that should rise first most advantaged tooke the delay of rising againe for paying the utmost farthing and to have part with them that rise first fit to be prayed for for our friends that are dead de Amina Cap. LVIII de Monog Cap. X. But this the Church is not chargeable with That there was a conceit among some licentious Christians that the paines of the damned might either cease or be abated by the prayers of the living you shall find by the answer so often quoted p. 226 232. and that All Souls day had the beginning from such a conceite But though men openly wicked may dye in communion with the Church yet the Church supposeth no man damned that dies in communion with the Church and therefore the Church is not chargeable with prayers for the damned It is a knowne rule of the Church that the offerings of those that dyed not in communion with the Church should not be received that the offerings of those that dye in communion with the Church could not be refused That this Rule is more ancient then the Heresy of Marcion and others before Marcion that baptized others for those that were dead as you have seene that is as ancient as the Apostles appears Because the reason why they baptized others in their stead must be because all those that were baptized were prayed for at the Eucharist and onely those as you see by S. Austine and the Canon of the Masse quoted just afore If then men openly wicked dyed in communion with the Church it was because the Laws of the Church were not executed which had they beene executed they should not have dyed in communion with the Church And because this inexecution may be for the common good of the Church it was not offensive that such were prayed for among other members of the Church For there is possibility for the salvation of those for whose salvation there is no presumption that is reasonable And there had been just offence for the kindred and friends of such dead had they been refused the common right of all members of the Church Therefore S. Austine saies though they that dye in this case receive no help yet they that remaine alive receive some comfort and satisfaction in the memory of their relations being owned by the prayers of the Church for Christians I will not here allege that the Church of England teacheth to pray for the dead where the Litanie praies for deliverance in the hour of death and in the day of judgement Or when we pray after the communion that by the merits and death of Christ and through faith in his blood we and all the whole Church may obtaine remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion But it is manifest that in the service appointed in the time of Edward the VI. prayer is made for the dead both before the Communion and at the Buriall to the same purpose as I maintaine It is manifest also that it was changed in Queen Elizabeths time to content the Puritans who now it appeares could not be content with lesse then breaking of the Church in peeces And therefore since unity hath not beene obtayned by parting with the Law of the Catholike Church in mine opinion for the love of it I continue the resolution to bound Reformation by the rule of the Catholike Church Allowing that it may be matter of Reformation to restore the prayers which are made for the dead to the originall sense of the whole Church but maintayning that to take away all prayer for the dead is not paring off abuses but cutting to the quick For I must now adde that all this showes the praiers of the Church of Rome for the delivering of soules out of Purgatory paines to have no ground in the Tradition of the Church there being no such place as Purgatory among those store-houses which are designed for those that depart in the state of Grace till the day of judgement no paine appointed to make satisfaction for the debt of temporall punishment remayning when the sin is remitted no translating of soules so purged from purgatory to heaven and the happynesse of it The delay of the resurrection may be a penalty if you take into it the consideration of that estate in which the soule may be detayned being such as that affection to the drosse of the world which it departeth with inforceth But what use is there of torment when the race is done When neither amendment of the party on whom it is inflicted nor of others that see the example can be expected to make God torment them whom he is reconciled to for the satisfaction of his vindicative justice is to make his vindicative justice delight in the evill of his creature when no reformation is to be expected by it Which in the government of the world is cruelty not justice If the law allow an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth it could never stand with Christianity under the law to take it where it repaires not a mans losse though the magistrate was to give it being required Civil Law may allow revenge to satisfie passion but the magistrate grants reparation to satisfie commutative justice which the party may demand for meere revenge That there is no ground for such punishment in the tradition of the Church I refer you to the title of Purgatory in the answer to the Iesuits challenge for evidence And it is indeed a thing which the disputing of our controversies hath made to appeare That there was from the beginning no question of any punishment for them that dye in Gods Grace That S. Austine
be counted Sacraments for the same reason and in the same nature and kind for which any thing else is or can be counted a Sacrament No not though they may all in their proper sense be truly called Sacraments of the Church because the dispensing of them all is trusted with the Church For Baptisme by the premises enters a man into the Covenant of Grace as the visible solemnity whereby it is contracted with the Church in behalfe of God which unlesse in case of peremptory necessity cannot be invisibly contracted So it intitleth to all the promises which the Gospel pretendeth And so also doth the Eucharist being the visible ceremony which God hath appointed for the renewing of it and of our profession to stand in it and to expect the promises which the Gospel pretendeth upon supposition of the condition which it requireth not otherwise And truly the flesh and bloud of Christ mystically received by our bodies necessarily importeth his spirit received by our soules supposing them qualified as the Gospel requireth and in and by the Spirit whatsoever is requisite to inable a Christian to performe his race here or to assure him of his reward in the world to come And yet the necessity thereof not so undispensable but that supposing a man cannot obtaine the communion thereof from the Church but by violating that Christianity which it sealeth neither can a man obtaine it by the Sacrament nor without the Sacrament need he faile of it that is standing to his Christianity as well in all other things as in not transgressing his Christianity for communion in the Eucharist with the Church And this is the case of those which are unjustly excommunicate Seeing in matters indifferent he that yeilds not to the Church that is to them who have the just power to conclude the Church when they judge it for the common good for him to do that which otherwise he is not obliged to do must needs seem justly excommunicable So these two Sacraments have the promise of grace absolutely so called that is of all the grace which the Gospel promiseth which it is to be acknowledged and maintained that no other of those actions that are or may be called Sacraments of the Church doth or can doe upon the like terms as they doe For of a truth it is granted that both these Sacraments are actions and consist in the action whereby they are either prepared or used though with so much difference between the two For Baptisme is of necessity an action that passes with the doing of it Whereas in the Eucharist there is one thing done in the preparing another in the using of it insomuch that the effect of consecrating it which I suppose here to be signified in the Scriptures as well as the most ancient of the Fathers by the name of Eucharistia or Thanksgiving remaines upon the thing consecrated so that the bread and the wine over which God was praised and thanked are metonymically called the Eucharist And yet in regard the consecration in reason tends to the use of receiving it and that the Church is not trusted or inabled to do it with effect but to that intent the totall of both is necessarily understood by the name of that Sacrament For supposing the ancient Church might have cause to allow the use of receiving this Sacrament to them who were not present in body though in spirit at the celebrating of it which I for my part in point of charity find my self bound to suppose even when I am not able to alledge any reason why my self would have done the same in the same case So long as by reasonable construction which the practice of the Church alloweth or groundeth the consecration tendeth to the use of receiving it is reasonably called the Sacrament or the Eucharist in order to that use If it be consecrated to any other intent either expressed or inforced by construction of reason upon the practise of the Church such practice bordering upon sacriledge in the abuse of the Sacrament the Church hath nothing to do to answer for it Nor is it my meaning that the Sacrament of Baptisme or the Eucharist doth or can consist in the outward action of washing of the body or of praying over the elements and reciting the Institution of our Lord. It is true the very bodily action were able in a great part to interpret the intent of doing it to those who are already Christians and know what Christianity requireth But seeing that can never be enough much lesse allwayes It is necessary that the intent be declared by certain words signifiying it But these words with the bodily action which they interpret will by this discourse concurre to make but one part of the Sacrament which containing the solemnizing of the Covenant of Grace will necessarily containe that which all this signifieth of invisible and spirituall grace conveighed to those who are qualified for it by that which is said and done in virtue of Gods promise He that will speak properly of these two Sacraments must make the matter of them to consist in one of these two parts The form of them being not the signification which is the same in all ceremonies but the promise which tieth to them the whole effect of the Covenant of Grace to which purpose it were well if the world would understand them to be seals of it This createth a vast difference between these two and any of the rest which are called Sacraments Which whether the Councile of Trent sufficiently expresse by providing an Anathema for those who shall say that the seven Sacraments are so equall one to the other that none is more worthy then another Sess VII Can. III. or not let them look to it I dispute not Thus much we see a difference is hereby acknowledged But the difference is vast in this regard that whereas both these Sacraments take effect in consideration of every particular mans Christianity and the promises annexed to that end the rest all of them take effect in consideration of the Communion of the Church and that which it is able to contribute towards the effect of Grace Which necessarily consists in that which the Church is able to contribute toward the effecting of that disposition which qualifieth for it So whereas these two immediately bring forth Gods grace as instruments of his promise by his appointment the rest must obtaine it by the meanes of Gods Church and the blessing annexed to communion with it He that believeth not Gods Church in the nature of a Society grounded upon profession of the true faith and consisting in that communion which separateth it not from the whole may promise himself the benefit of his Baptisme and of the Eucharist whomsoever he communicateth with professing himself a Christiane He who believeth every Church to be a part of the whole Church as he must acknowledge it requisite to the effect of Baptisme and the Eucharist that they be ministred neither
the â—lesh to fall from their own to their husbands or their wives Gods the worshippers whereof they saw prosper in the world Not so those who had undertaken his Crosse and thereupon if faithfully had received his spirit which the Gospell bringeth For so why should the Church think that having Images should seduce those that are such to thinkâ— them the seates of some God head which supposeth a conceite of more Gods then one And upon this supposition proceedeth all that is written â—n the prophesies of Esay and Jeremy in the book of Baruch under the person of Jeremy and in the rest of the prophets in scorne of the Images of the Gentiles To wit that they imagined some Deity contayned and inclosed in them which were indeed meere wood and stone The question that remaines is but onely this whether this power of the Church hath been duely executed and within the bounds of our common Christianity or not For to pretend that the Apostles themselves have put it in use by prescribing that images be had and in Churches would be to contradict all that appeares in the point by the records of the Church For though I be obliged to say that there was never any constitution of the Apostles injoyning the whole Church not to bring any image into any Church because all the Church that is considerable hath sometimes done it yet will it easily appeare there is no act of the whole Church binding all to have them in Churches The council of Elivira Can. XXXVI Placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere ne quod câ—litur in parietibus pingatur It seemed good that there be no pictures in the Churches least that which is worshiped be pictured on the wales The Epistle of Epiphanius to Iohn Bishop of Jerusalem is extant in S. Jerome relating how finding somthing of our Lord Christ painted upon a vaile in a Church of his Diocesse he gave order to teare it which being out of his Diocese he could not have don had he not thought it against Gods Law and therfore no law of the Church And Eusebius Eccles Hist VII 18. relating the statue of our Lord curing the woman that had the issue of blood at Caesaâ—ea Philipi faith it is no marvaile that Gentils converted to the â—aith should honour our Lord and his Apostles for he saith he had sâ—en images of Peter and Paul as well as of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preserved from their time as the Gentiles used to honour their Saviors or benefactors But had it been against Gods Law would not the Apostles have told them so would they not have believed the Apostles whom they belâ—eved before they were Christians The picture of the good shepheard upon the Chalices of the Church which Tertullian appeales to de Pudicit cap. VII easily shows that they used not his Picture who used an Embleme of Christ for a Picture And you heard S. Austine say that he knew many worshippers of Pictures and Tombes among Christians The true ground and effect of these passages is hard for me to evidence here in a few words I believe S. Austine saw some dow baked Christians doe that at the tombes of Christians which when they were idolaters they did at the tombes of their friends where part of their Idolatries don were to their Ghosts For by that which followes he complains that he saw that excesse of meate and drinke upon the graves of Christians which it is no marvaile if the Idolatries of the Gentiles allowed So that it is no such marvaile that such Christians should worship Pictures as did the Gentiles The Canon is one of the hardest pieces of antiquity that I know The most probable seemes to be this That it followes the reason alleged in Deuteronomy against any image for God because they saw no shape of God So the word cultus seemes strictly to signifie that honour which Christianity tenders immediately to God not that which it may injoine to his creature And their reason will be this because the God head cannot be painted therefore no Pictures in Churches I doe believe there was somthing of the quarrell betweene Iohn of Jerusalem and Epiphanius about Origen upon which Theophilus of Alexandria heaved S. Chrosystome out of the Sea of Constantinople in that act of tearing the vaile But I believe Epiphanius acted according to his opinion in it and an opinion that he owned to all the world what ever the rest of the Church did for we see not that proceeding against Iohn of Jerusalem as against S. Chrosystome Eusebius might thinke those statues of our Lord and his cure those pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul more ancient then indeed they were But neither doth he charge any Idolatry upon them nor is there any question in the case but of having pictures in private not in the Church That after this time Churches were everywhere trimmed with the stories of the Saints and the Passions of the Martyrs I need not repeat much to prove the controversy in the East about the worshipping of them is evidence enough that the use of them went forward but with such contradiction that some held them Idoles and broke them in peeces who were there upon called Iconoclastâ— others worshipped them who after many attempts of the contrary party prevailed at length in a Council at Nicaea thence called the VII General Council with the concurrence of the Pope That the decree of the Councill injoines no Idolatry notwithstanding whatsoever prejudice to the contrary I must maintaine as unquestionable supposing the premises So far is it from leaving any roome for the imagination of any false God head to be represented by the images which it allowes that it expressely distinguisheth that honour done the image of our Lord Christ to be equâ—vâ—cally called worship that is to be onely so called but not to signifie the esteeme of God which he that believes the Holy Trinity can no way attâ—ibute to the image of our Lord supposing not granting that it were lawfull to honoure the image of our Lord not with any gesture or word signifying any God head inclosed in it which the idolatries of the heathen did signifie but that it is the picture of that man who also is God which he who believes the Trinity and puts off his hat and bowes the knee to the image of our Lord must needs signifie I say this shall be no â—dolatry because whether the worship of the image or of him whose image it is necessarily it is no worship of God but proceeds from an esteem that the image is a contemptible creature but that the man whom it signifies is God I say upon these termes it is not possible that it should be Idolatry to worship this image Because though the words or the gesture which are used may signifie the honour due to God alone yet the profession under which they are used necessarily limits them to the honour of that which is not
it under the knowledge of his Church And when those that have spent their time in this kind of life out of their experience and knowledge undertake to direct others the way of governing themselves in it when others joyning themselves to them undertake to order their life according to such directions neither hath the Church any thing to do in the matter of them further then to take account that they be according to Christianity nor do the parties enter into any new obligation but that of performing that profession which is become notorious The consequence whereof is this that the profession being â—ransgressed by an act that creates a new state as that of mariage the bond whereof is insoluble the obligation which is violated being to God and not to the Church the Church shall have no power to free him from the obligation contracted whatsoever censure the transgression of his profession may require John Cassians who lived in the Monasteries of Aegypt wherein this exercise seems to have received first that forme with other parts according to their capacities imitated mightily justifies the Apostolicall originall of the profession by the antiquitie of their Monasteries and the Traditions by which they lived received from age to age without expresse beginning But above all the three severall formes of them extant in Aegypt during his time seems to demonstrate by what degrees it came to that height The first of them called in his time Sarabaitae professing no communion with others but at each mans discretion seems to him a defection from the common profession But signifies that at the first the profession did stand without living in comon though it could not stand so long without abuse To avoid which abuse first Convents began then Anchorites left them to live alone in the wildernesse You may see what he writeth De Instit Mâ—n II. 3 5. Collat. XVIII 3-7 The orders of their Convents which he describes as also Saint Basils instructions make the work of their life to be the service of God by prayer and fasting with the praises of God But so that labouring with their hands in some bodily work and living in so much abstinence they were able to contribute the greatest part of their gaine for almes to the poor Though not at their own discretion but at the discretion of their superiours to whose guidance they had once given up themselves How farre this is distant from any form of this profession extant in the West is easie enough to imagine For all this while they remaine meer Laies without all pretense of that superiority over the people in the Church which the Clergy signifieth That superiority which they have one over another standing onely upon that voluntary consent and profession the solemnizing whereof signifieth that it is approved by the Church Nor is there any thing of indowment in all this their profession to give almes of their labours rendring them uncapable of any such But it must not be denied that the Monasteries of the West have been the meanes to preserve that learning which was preserved alive during the time at least the knowledge of the Scriptures and other records of the Church upon which the knowledge of the Scriptures depends And certainly the knowledge of the Scriptures is more dangerous then a sword in a mad mans hand unlesse it be joyned with that humility which onely Christianity teacheth A thing more rare in them that think themselves guilty of learning then pearles or diamonds A thing so difficult for them to attaine that it ought to be counted a sufficient price for all the exercise a man can bestow in this profession all his life long That sobriety of mind that gravity of manners that watchfullnesse over a mans thoughts and passions which is absolutely requisite for the discharge as of all Christians so especially of them that are liable to the temptation of spirituall pride for knowledge in matters of God is a competent reward for all that retirement from the world which this profession can require This being the designe of Monasteries it cannot be denied that the goods which they may be indowed with are consecrated to the service of God as estated upon his Church But not therefore upon the Church of Rome The pretense of allowing the Rule of Monasticall Orders which ought indeed to be approved of by the Church and of reducing them into severall bodies under one Government in severall dominions and the Churches of them a thing no way concerning the foundation of the Church or any right thereof derived from the same hath been the means for the Church of Rome to exempt them from the government of their Ordinaries and to reduce them to an immediate dependence upon it by whose Charter each Order subsisteth But there is no manner of ground in the profession for this nor was it so originally but is come to be so by the swelling of the Regular Power of that See to that height which the pretense of Infallibility speaketh For why should not every Church or every Synode to which any Church belongs and the respective heads of the same be capable of visiting regulating or correcting whatsoever may concerne the common Christianity in bodies of meer Lay people as I have showed all Monaâ—â—eriâ—s or Convents of Monkes originally to be subsisting within the respective Diocesse of every Church Unlesse the case of a Monke falls out to be a cause that concerns the whole Church as that of Pelagius For then there will be no marvaile that it should resort to the same triall that determines the like causes of other Christians And upon these terms though the Church of England hath no Monasteries as not essentiall to the constitution of the Church but advantagious for the maintainance of that retirement from the world in the reasons of our actions wherein our common Christianity consisteth by that visible retirement wherein this profession consisteth For the constitution thereof succeeding that horrible act of abolishing the Monasteries under Henry VIII it is no marvaile if it were difficult to agree in a forme which the Reformation might allow and cherish yet is no son of the Church of England bound to disown the whole Church in maintaining Monasticall life as agreeable with Christianity and expedient to the intent of it They that understand the intent of Monasticall life to be contemplation do not seem to consult with the Primitive custome and practice of it in the Church For when bodily labour was by the Rule to succeed in the intervals of Gods service and as soon as it was done I cannot conceive how a man should imagine a more active life That the activity thereof is exercised not in any businesse tending to advantage a man in this world but to keep him imploied so as to live free to serve God maketh it not the lesse active though not to the ordinary purpose The case is the same supposing that in stead of bodily labour men give
of the Church or the customes thereof more anciently in being then expressely inacted by any common decree of it Whereupon it followes by vertue of the premises that the state of Monasticall life is of its owne nature subordinate to the state of the Clargy tending as a meanes by private exercise to fit men to the discharge of themselves towards the world which the Clergy obligeth every man to converse with in that manner which Monasticall life professeth Of this there is sufficient evidence by those many examples that are extant in the records of the ancient Church of such as have been taken from Monasticall life to be promoted to the service of the Church Which course expressing no dispensation in the profession of Monasticall life formerly made necessary intimateth a reasonable ground for thâ—s constâ—uction That the Church allowing men to dispose of themselves to the exercise of monasticall life intended not to part with that interest which it hath in every particular Christian to oblige those to the service thereof by promoting them to Holy Orders whomsoever she findeth fittest for it And that the allowance of Monasticall life is in order to this intent and purpose A thing still more visible by all those institutions and foundations whereby Monastâ—ties have been made and accounted seminaries of the Church and the Clergy of it This being said you see how great aquestion remaines whether the Clergy be bound to the continence of single life or not to wit Bishops Priests Deacons For the Deacons office hath indeed beene divided into severall orders of inferior Clergy sub deacons readers dore keepers waiters and that for the necessity of the Church in that estate which was before Constantine So that the consâ—uâ—ion of them cannot be imputed to any corruption that might follow upon the temporall prosperity of the Church But of these inferior Orders there is no question For as concerning Deacons you have a Canon of the Council at Aricyra the Canons whereof were afterwards part of the Canons of the whole Church allowing them not to marry being Deacons but to be made Deacons being marryed And an other of the councill of Elvira in Spaine ancienter then the Councill of Nicaea injoyning upon Bishops Presbyters Deacons and Sub-deacones to abstaire from their wives under paine of their Clergy At the council of Nicaea it was in debate to doe the same and the Council was moved by Paphnutius a Bishop of great merit in Egypt himselfe alwaies a single man to rest in the rule presently in force which was preferring those who being single should loose their ministries if they maried to all decrees of the Clergey especially Priests and Bishops to make use never the lesse of those who were married or professed an intent of marryage when there was ground by the rest of their qualities of confidence in them for the discharge of their office For this as it agrees with the Canon of Ancyra and the forme of it so it assures us that the Council of Elvira could not have taken in hand to impose so great a burthen had not the precedent practice of the Church by unwritten custome before the Canon disposed the Church to receive it And therefore I will in this point which hath beene the subject of many volumes and in which it would be endlesse to examine the Canons the precedents the authorities that concerne it discharge my selfe chiefly upon Epiphanius whose words in the LIX Haeresy of the Novatians are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moreover neither doth the Church admit him that is the husband of one wife yet living and getting Children Deacon or Priest or Bishop or sub deacon Vnlesse he abstain from that one or is become a Widower Especially where the Canons of the Church are exact But you will by all meanes say to me that in some places Priests Deacons and Sub-deacons doe still get children That is not by the Canon but by the slack disposition of mens minds sometimes and for plenties sake when men fit to minister are not found In the conclusion of his worke also he reckons this for one of the Lawes of the whole Church without mentioning this exception Now if you goe to seeke for any rule in writing to bind the whole Church to this before Epiphanius his time you will finde none But a custome you will finde in force which is more then all the Law of the world in writing whereby it will appeare that the indeavour of the Church was to be served with single men but when the best qualified were not such to balke the rule for the appearance of that common good in balkeing it for which the rule it selfe was made And so the resolution of this pointe attesteth first the Corporation of the Church when for the good of the body it presrcibes it selfe rules what sort of persons to make use of for the exercise of those offices in the communion whereof the surety of it standeth Then it eminently attests the superiority of the Bip and his Clergy in every of those Churches whereof the whole consisteth Vnlesse men be so wilfully senselesse as to attribute the wisdome which such dispensations required to the rashnesse of anymultitude Last of all â—it attests the regular pre-eminence of the Church of Rome over the rest of the Westerne Churches by the interposition whereof visible in those times when it had no help from the secular power to make it irregular and infinite so great a burthen became so far owned First then I must free the Church from the heavy charge of bringing in the doctrine of deviles foretold by S. Paul in prohibiting mariage 1 Tim. IV. 1 3. which I shall doe the more slightly because I have had oportunity else where to show that he speakes of the Heresies on foot in the times of the Apostles which made maryage the ordinance of those powers which made the world which their doctrine distinguished from the true soveraine God For what hath the rule of the Church to doe with any such supposition as this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Epipha prosecutes his purpose For the Church alwaies aiming at the most fitting as well ordered by the H. Gh decreed to indeavour that the service be performed without distraction from God and spirituall necessities effected with all the most charitable conscience I meane that it is fit in regard of suddaine ministries and necessities that the Priests the Deacons the Bishops wait upon God For if the Holy Apostle command those of the Laity saying that they may attend upon Prayer for a time 1. Cor. VII 5. How much more commandeth he the Priest the same Now I meane with out distraction that he may waite upon the Priest-hood which is performed in spirituall necessities according to God Here you have no mention for incapacity of the Priest hood or any service which it injoyneth by maryage or any thing to disparage the estate in the sense of
which it stands upon other termes But this I say that when the extremity of one party occasions the other to fall into the opposite extreme neither party seemes clearely excusable of the fault which the other commits in betaking it selfe to the opposite extreme And then I say further that when secular force was applyed to impose a burthen which the experience of more in corrupt times had showed that they could not bear the issue must needs be the treading down of Christianity for maintaining of the â—edge that should sense it And therefore the proceedings being voide in all reason of Law it is no marvaile if that moderation which the argeement of both sides might have preserved could not take place I am yet indebted to those of the congregations in a short account of the right of the people in Church maters I have acknowledged that during the time of the Apostles they were present at ordinations at inflicting of penance at Councils that the resolution of maters in debate passed under their knowledg that their consent concurred to put them in force But I have also maintayned that the unity of the Church is the soveraine Law to which all other Lawes though never so much inacted by the Apostles never so evidenty couched in the scriptures are necessarily subordinate as tending onely to maintaine unity by maintaining order in the exercise of those offices for communion wherein the Church subsisteth That in order hereto every Church is a body tending to constitute one body of all Churches consisting of all Christians contayned in one city and the territory of it howsoever cities and their territories may be distinguished as some times meerely upon this account and to this intent and purpose they have been distinguished And by this means I have prescribed that the consent of the people of each Church was never requisite in this consideration because they usually meet together for the service of God â—ut as part of the people of that Church who were to be acquainted with proceedings concerning their Church that they might have reason to rest satisfied in the same I have provided in due place that Lawes expressely provided by the Apostles and recorded in the scriptures for that state of the Church which they saw may and ought to be superseded by the Church in case they prove uselesse to that purpose for which they were provided by that change which succeeds in the state of the Church For how should the soveraign Law of unity take place how should the Church continue one and the same body from the first to the second coming of Christ otherwise Now this interest of the people in maters concerning their Church though related in the scriptures and known by them in point of fact to have had the force of law during the time of the Apostles and accoâ—ingly in the primative Church of the ages next the Apostles yet cannot be said to be any where commanded in point of right for a Law of God to take place in all ages I must therefore prescribe upon this account and doe prescribe That when the world is come into the Church and the whole people of England for example have declared themselves Christians it cannot be any more for the unity of the Church that the consent of the people be required to the validity of those acts which concerne the community of their respective Churches For then would it be no lesse unpossible to constitute one Church of all Churches then it is for all Independents to constitute a Body that may be called the Church of all their congregations each whereof they call a Church And therefore there is no cause why they should demand the same regard to be had to each one of the people when all the people of a City and the bounds thereof concur to constitute the Church of a City and when the chiefe part of Christians within the boundes of a City assembling at once for the service of God might also be acquainted with the proceedings of maters concerning their Church But all this while I am not so simple as to grant that the consent of the people then required to the validity of things done in the Church did consist in plurality of votes having easily huffed out that ridiculous imagination that S. Paul and Barnabas created Elders by votes of the people testified by lifting up their hands the action of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being attributed to themselves not to the people But the consent of the people I meane in body as the people that is a quality distinct from the Clergy in the Church as their superiours and guides in maters concerning the community of it For is there any example in the Scripture that ever they went to the poll or counted noses in passing of maters concerning the Church which the people were acquainted with Is there any such example in all the practice of the primitive Church in which it is acknowledged the same course continued as under the Apostles Ordinations were held in presence of the people that if there were cause they who knew every mans person might object against those who were in nomination if not they might consent by one vote of all that was called their suffrage This being the maner upon this occasion they might did sometimes step before their leaders and demand such as liked them best But so that if they forgot themselves the Clergy was bound not to admit their demand And in case of a Bishop the neighbour Bishops were bound by S. Pauls instructions to Timothy not to lay hands on any for whom they could not answer Tertullian testifieth that mater of excommunication was handled at the assemblies of the Church that is with the knowledge of the people as the case of the incestuous person at Corinth in S. Paul is But neither were all maters handled before the people if the mater of S. Pauls communicating with the Jewes were handled with the Elders before the people were acquainted with it Acts XXI nor is it posible to imagine supposing a Church not to be a congregation but that which I have said that the people can have satisfaction in all maters of that nature when all the world is come into the Church As for Councils it is a thing ridiculous to demand because the people concurred to the resolution of that at Jerusalem Acts XV. therefore that the acts of Councils should passe the people For when the Church of Jerusalem and the whole Church were both the same thing it was no marvaile that the people was to be satisfied in the conclusion of it And by the forme of holding the Spanish Counciles which you have at the begining of the Councils â—â—t appeares that there was provision made for the people to assist and see what was done at their Councils But so unreasonable is it to demand that the people consent to the acts of Councils that it is manifest that there can be no
such thing as a Councill according to the supposition of the congregations And therefore in the acts of Counciles which are the Lawes whereby the Church is to be ruled the people can have no further satisfaction then to see them openly debated under the knowledge of the people Indeed the interest of Soveraigne powers in Church maters which I allow not onely in order to the publicke peace but as they are members of the Catholicke Church and so trusted with the protection of all that is Catholicke in behalf of the people gives them that power over the acts of Counciles which by and by I shal declare Which though grounded upon another account and belonging to them in an other quality then that which the constitution of the Church createth is notwithstanding provided by God to secure his people of their Christianity together with the unity of the Church But the suffrage of the people of every Church that is their acknowledgment that they know no exception against the persons in nomination for Bishops or other orders of the Church as it agreeth with the proceedings of the Apostles and primative Church so must it needs be a most powerfull meanes to maintaine that strict bond of love and reverence between the Clergy and the people in the recovery whereof the unity of the Church consisteth And supposing publick penance retrived without which it is in vaine to pretend Reformation in the Church there can be no stronger meanes to maintaine Christianity in effect then the satisfaction of the people though not in the measure of penance to be injoyned yet in the performing of it Alwaies provided that this interest of the people be grounded upon no other presumption that any man is the child of God or in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods spirit then that which the law of the Church whereby he injoyes communion which the Church createth For this presumption must needs be stronger concerning the Clergy by their estate then it can be concerning the people Because by their estate they are to be the choice of the people And though as all morall qualities are subject to many exceptions some of the people may be better Christians then some of the Clergy yet a legall presumption that any of them is so must needs be destructive to the Unity of the Church But no disorder in religion can be so great as to justifie the obdurate resolution of the Church of Rome to withdraw the scriptures from the people There is nothing more manifest then that the lamentable distractions which we are under have proceeded from the presumption of particular Christians up on their understanding in the scriptures proceeding to think their quality capable of reforming the Church Onely those that can have joy of so much mischief to our common Christianity can thinke otherwise But I am not therefore induced to thinke our Christianity any other then the Christianity of those whom our Lord whom S. Paul and other Apostles and Prophets exhort and incourage to the study of the scriptures Whom S. Chrysostome and others of the Fathers so earnestly deale with to make it their businesse All the offense consists in this that private Christians observe not the bounds of that which is Catholike when they come to read the scriptures For if they be not content to confine the sense of all they read within that rule of faith in which the whole Church agreeth because they understand not how they stand together If they thinke the Lawes of the whole Church can command things contrary to that which God by scripture commandeth It is no marvaile they should proceed to make that which they think they see in the Scripures though indeed they see it not a Law to the Church For they think it is Gods will that ties them to it But if the Church be the Church as I have showed it is then was the Scripture never given private Christians to make them Judges what all Christians are bound to believe what the Church is to injoine the Church for the condition of communion with the Church If any man object the inconvenience that it appeareth not who or where that Church is and so we are confined to those boundes that cannot appeare This inconvenince is the clearest evidence that I can produce for the Catholike Church For unlesse we grant this inconvenience to come by Gods institution and appointment we must confesse the unity of the Church to be Gods appointment because the dissolution thereof produceth this inconvenience For were the unity of the Church in being I could easily send any man to the Catholike Church by sending him to his owne Church Which by holding communion with the whole Church must needs stand distinguished from those which hold it not though under the name of Churches And he who resorts to the Church for resolution in the Scriptures supposes that he is not to break from the Church for that wherein the whole Church is not agreed Now that the unity of the Church is broken in pieces it remaines no more visible to common sense what it is wherein the whole Church agrees as the condition for comunion with it But the meanes to make it appear againe having disappeared through disunion in the Church is that discourse of reason which proceeds upon supposition of visible unity established by God in the Church And the meanes to make it appear againe to common sense is the restoring of that unity in the Church by the interruption whereof it disappeareth Then shall the edification of particular Christians in our common Christianity proceed without interruption by meanes of the Scriptures every one supposing that his edification in the common Christianity dependeth not upon the knowledge of those things wherein the Church agreeth not but of those things wherein it agreeth In the mean time it remaineth that offenses proceed to be infinite and endlesse because men giving no bounds to their studies in the Scriptures imagine the edification of the Church to consist in that wherein themselves not regarding the consent of the Church have placed their own edification in the Scriptures CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the effect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians câ—aseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclâ—siasticall Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Interest of the State in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimoniall causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon acts of Episcopacy but upon the Secular Powers
of Christendome AND now I may make good that which might seem an excessive word when I said it that the Power which I demand for the Church is no more then the subsistence of every Corporation constituted by Soveraine Power requireth Onely that it stands by Gods Law these by mans For what Corporation subsisteth without publick persons to governe or to execute those things wherein it communicateth without any power to limit that which the Lawes of the foundation determine not to admit and to shut out whom the foundation thereof qualifieth without a stock to defray the charge of those offices for communion wherein it subsisteth That which renders the power of the Church considerable even in the Church that is by the originall constitution of it is the extent thereof comprising all Christians For by that meanes in what quality a man is owned by his own Church in the same he is owned by all Christians supposing the unity of the Church to take place and prevaile That which renders it considerable in the world is the professing of Christianity by the Soveraine Powers of the World that is of those States which Christendome containeth For supposing that which hath been made to appear that the Church being a Society formed by the act whereby God constituteth it dissolveth not into the state when by professing Christianity it becoms obliged to protect the Church The rights and Powers thereof and the qualities of persons ministring the same necessarily remaine distinct from those which the State wherein it subsisteth either involveth or produceth And the Protection of the state signifieth further that allowance or that maintenance of the rights that concurre to the acts thereof which a Christian State needs must afford that Christianity which it professeth The Power of ministering the immediate instruments of Grace the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Eucharist The power of the Keyes in exacting that profession which qualifieth for them the meanes subordinate to the ministring of them The power of solemnizing those Offices with the Prayers of the Church which the Promise of Grace implied in the foundation of the Church attendeth all these make the act of the Church meerly ministeriall the blessing that attendeth the meer effect of Gods grace onely limited to the communion of his Church When the Church determineth the times the places the persons the occasions the formes the circumstances the maner of celebrating any of those offices which qualify for Communion in the service of God with the Church of those which provide for the celebration thereof of those wherein it consisteth the acts whereby it determineth that which God hath not determined done within the Sphere of Gods Law oblige all to conformity by Gods Law as the acts of Corporations oblige the members by the act of the State upon which they stand Not as if this conformity were the worship of God but that wich prepareth and maketh way for it The Lawes of the Apostles though recorded in Scripture are necessarily by the subject matter of them of this nature Therefore I maintaine them subject to change upon the same account as the Lawes of all visible Corporations are necessarily subject to change He that should think the observing of them pleasing to God for the thing which they injoyne and determine not for that act of Gods service the circumstance whereof they limit might commit superstition in observing the Lawes given by the Apostles as well as by the Church There may be ground for a presumption in reason that there is superstition in doing that which for the nature and kind of it may lawfully be done when there is so much businesse about the circumstance that there is no appearance to reason how it can stand and be done in order to the principall which it pretendeth For example Pilgrimage to the holy Land hath in it a pretense of extraordinary devotion to which a man sequestreth his time from his attendance upon this world and the advantages of it But if in effect the exercise of devotion appear not the principall is there not ground in reason for a construction that a man hopes to bribe God with his bodily exercise to grant those effects of Grace which he cannot be obliged to but by the condition which the Gospel importeth This is superstition and will-worship in the badde sense or the vaine worship of God by doctrines delivered by men which our Lord and the Prophet Esay charge the Jewes with When a man stands upon the circumstances tending to limit the order and uniformity of that worship of God in Spirit and Truth wherein Christianity consisteth as if the observation of them were the substance of it And yet that uniformity which the Lawes of the Church procure so necessary to the maintenance of Gods service for which it standeth that there is no lesse superstition in standing upon the not doing of them Which cannot be stood upon so farre beyond the sphere of their kind and nature without appearance of an imagination that a man becomes acceptable to God by refusing them But to proceed to violate the unity of the Church upon such a cause is nothing else then to place the worship of God as much in committing sacriledge as in abhorring of Idols This being the utmost of what the Church is able to do by the originall constitution thereof it will not be prejudiciall to that service of God which Christianity injoyneth that the acts thereof should take hold upon the conscience Because it is easily understood by that interruption of Gods service which the disorders of this time have made visible how every Christian is bound in conscience to concurre to that uniformity which as it procureth the service of God so is procured by the Lawes of the Church But this effect is invisible between God and the conscieuce The visible effect of the originall power of the Church is considerable in regard of the greatnesse of that Body which is the whole Church and ownes the act of every Church done within the within the true sphere by giving effect to it But it becomes considerable to the world by that accessory force which the protection of the Church by the power of the World necessarily insuing upon the profession of Christianity so long as the acknowledgement of one Catholick Church is a part of it addeth to the acts of the Church by owning them for the acts of a Corporation which the State protecteth Before I come to limit this effect I must acknowledge one part of the Church-right to have ceased and become voide by the coming of the world into the Church and the conversion of the Romane Empire to the Faith That is the power of ending all sutes between Christians within the Church Saint Paul is expresse in it And the generality of our Saviours command to resort to the Church if thy brother offend thee can never be satisfied with any other sense The Synagogue had the same order upon the
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
which it standeth For it is manifest that the powers from whose acts this argument is drawne are such as hold communion with the Church of Rome and acknowledg the Pope in behalf of it As manifest it is that the Pope not onely challengeth to be head of the Church in Church maters but maintaineth Friers Canonists to chalenge for him Soveraigne power in civill causes over all persons in order to Christianity To say then that by the acts which they limite the use of Ecclesiastical power by they pretend that there is no Power in the Church but what they give it is to say that by those acts they contradict themselves and proclaime their own professing themselves Sons of the Church not onely to be without cause but to signifie nothing as words without sense Which with what modesty it can be affirmed in the face of Christendome I leave to Christendome to judge Onely I will here summon the liberties of the Gallicane Church as they are digested by that worthy Advocate of Paris P. Pithaeus to give sentence in this cause being a peece much appealed to by the Father of this argument as that which deserves to be accounted of prime consequence in the businesse I desire those that will take the pains to looke into them to tell me whether they find not these two to be the first two points of them That the King of France is Soveraigne in his own dominions and that he is Protector of the Canons Liberties and priviledges of the Church And then I desire them to imploy the common understanding of men to pronounce whether these be not the same points of secular interest in Church maters which I have advanced Namely as Soveraigne to have no competitor in the right of the Crowne and as Christian to be borne Protector of the Catholicke and Apostolick Faith and of the Church and of the Lawes of it which have no being but upon supposition of that faith whereof one part is the beliefe of the Catholike Church Onely I shall take notice that they protest that they are called Liberties and not Priviledges on purpose to signifie that they are no exceptions to the common right of all Soverainities in Church maters but essentiall points of it Which they call the liberties of the French Church in particular because the Kings of France they thinke have maintained them better then other Princes of Christendome have done In consequence of this collection of Pithaeus besids the proofs of them in two great volums we have of late a commentary of Petrus Puteanus upon these Liberties as they are digested by Pithaeus the businesse whereof is first to make good that they are of more unquestionable right in France then they have been and are practiced also by other Princes and states of Christendome which is answer enough to this whole argument as it stands upon the authority of Christendome expessed by the acts of it Neverthelesse I shall further alledge in this cause the collection which Frier Paul of the order delli Servi hath made of the articles accorded betweene the Pope and the state of Venice concerning the Inquisition the bounds of secular Power in the cognizance of those causes wherein that court may pretend concurrence of Jurisdiction with it I will not undertake to say that the state of Venice maintaining the Inquisition upon such termes as this collection or Capitular declareth doth maintaine those persons in the use of Ecclesiasticall power to whom by the common right of the whole Church it belongeth Neither will I maintaine that whatsoever those articles distinguish and allow the Inquisition is by virtue of the common right of the whole Church For who can ty him to expresse every where what is by Ecclesiasticall right and what of secular privilege by free act of tâ—e state bestowed upon the Church as all states that would be held Christians have alwaies done This I say that he that shall take the paines to look into it shall finde the bounds of secular and Ecclesiastical power so expressely distinguished upon the reasons which I have aleged that it shall be too late to say that they who acknowledge a Church and certaine rights by Gods Lawe belonging to the foundation of it doe contradict themselves when they do limit the exercise of those rights Being ready further to maintaine that they doe nothing but right when they limit the exercise of them according to the reasons which I have advanced As for the Leviathan who hath made himselfe so merry with compasing a state Christian in which the Ecclesiasticall power is distinct from the secular with the governement of Oberon and Queene Mabbe and theire Pugs in the land of Fairies If he speake of a state framed according to the opinion of those that make the Pope soveraigne in all causes and over all persons in order to Christianity I grant he hath reason For there is not nor can be any such state and it would be indeed a kingdome of confusion and darkenesse Nay where the Church it selfe is Soveraigne as in the Popes dominions show the difference of the grounds upon which severall rights and powers are held and exercised will be in some points though not in all no lesse visible then else where But if he intend by consequence to say the same of all Christian states that acknowledg an Ecclesiasticall power derived from the Law of God and not from the secular then I remit to those that shall have perused the practice of Christendome but in those short peeces that I have named whether they believe those states which so governe themselves to be the land of Fairies or his wits that writ such things to have beene troubled with Fairies And now in particular to say what the maintenance of the Church in giving Lawes to the Church requires that is to say in determining those maters the determination whereof becomes necessary for the maintenance of unity in the Communion of the Church It is easy to deduce from the premises that every Christian is under two obligations One to the Church which as a Christian he is bound to communicate with The other as belonging to that state of Government which he believeth to be lawfully setled in his country By the act of those whom he believes to have right to oblige respectively these two societies which if we speake onely of that part of the Church which is in one soverainty consist of the same persons if they be all of the same Church every Christian is respectively obliged For by the premises it remaines manifest that it is the act of the Church to determine the mater of Ecclesiasticall Law and give it force to oblige the respective part thereof under paine of forseiting the communion of the Church But the act of the state either not to hinder this effect when and where Christianity is onely tollerated as a corporation which it alloweth Or to make them Lawes of the state when and where
to be maintained by the first-fruits and oblations of Christians goods have not thought it fit to leave this maintainance to the daily wil of Christians but to make good that which they have vested in the Church for a standing indowment by protection of Law it is manifest that they have left themselves no particular right in that which either themselves have consecrated or allowed their subjects to consecrate to the use of the Church But it doth not follow from hence that they have abandoned and disclaimed that common right which every Common wealth hath in all goods of particular persons for the maintenance and defence of the Publick in the necessities of it Whereby it seemeth that be the gift of Ecclesiasticall goods never so large or so absolute for the form which private mens gifts go in the Soveraigne by making them good doth not abandon the right of publicke aide in them And therefore that the Common wealth may notwithstanding serve themselves of taxes imposed on Church goods Likewise seeing the use of Church goods is declared by all records of the Church as well as by the Scriptures to tend to the maintainance of the poor which is included in the intent of maintaining Gods service in the Church it followes that if Church goods be used otherwise by those that are not proprietors but trustees for the poor it is in the secular power to reduce and restore the use of them according to the original intent of the Church But to seize them into the hands of the secular power as if the Corporation of the Church could be dissolved by mans Law which is founded by Gods to be imployed to the advantage of the seizers of them is an attempt of sacrilege upon Gods goods first and by consequence upon Gods Law by which the Church standeth For the indowment of the Church may be invaded by Secular power upon the Title of publick aide but extended beyond any bound of it that reason or common sense can allow And this is sacriledge though consistent with an opinion that they are the Churches For it is no new thing for men to transgresse their profession by their actions But it may also be invaded out of an opinion that they are onely publick goods and not Gods And that opinion supposeth that there is no such thing as a Corporation of the Church founded by God which hitherto Christians by their Creed do professe to believe And therefore this is a sacrilege of an higher nature tending to root out all difference of good and bad according to Christianity that is grounded upon the constitution of the Church Seeing then that all Christian Kingdoms and states have thought themseves tied to inable the Church by their Laws to transmit those estates to posterity which either Soveraigns or private Christians have upon supposition of Gods Law indowed it with for how should all Christians agree to do that which no Law of Christianity obliged them to do it will be of no force to argue from any limitations which Christian States may have bounded the right of Tithes with that they did not believe the Church to be a Corporation inabled by God to hold an estate bestowed upon it but onely to be made such a one by their priviledges For as it appeares by the premimises that those limitations may be according to Gods Law So whether they be so or not it is to be judged by the grounds upon which I proceed here And this is the case of the right of Patronage reserved over Churches to those that first indowed them by consent of the Church in remembrance of their merit For as it may be so limited as to be no prejudice to the Church and to Christianity So that it is every where so limited I do not find my self tied to maintaine Of the concurrent interests of Church and State in marriage or matrimonial causes I cannot say much here Supposing the premises upon which I maintaine it I can undertake thereupon to evidence the weaknesse of this presumption That those Christian powers which take upon them to limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes do not believe any Ecclesiasticall power in them as of divine right that is to say any Corporation of the Church indowed by God with power to allow or disallow the marriages of Christians Suppose then that our Lord Christ hath introduced a new Law among Christians of the marriage of one with one and that indissoluble saving upon breach of wedlock Suppose that which I proved afore that the Lawes of Moses are not Lawes to the Church but arguments evidencing the Lawes of the Church by the correspondence betweene it and the Synagogue And therefore Granting that those degrees in which marriage was prohibited Jewes by the Leviticall Law are not licensed for marriage among Christians That it doth not follow that no further degrees are prohibited in the Church Suppose further from common sense and experience of the world that upon any new Law there will arise a multitude of new cases to be decided either by particular jurisdiction or by a generall Law And the power of deciding the same vested in that Corporation which first received the Law Suppose againe that marriage though among Christians limited to a mutuall interest in one anothers bodies for the preventing of concupiscence is notwithstanding a civile contract supposing the same freedome from error or force in the persons that contract that is requisite to the validity of all civil contracts And further that it may concerne the State to limit the qualities of persons that may contract it so that not being contracted within those bounds which the State shall limit it shall be either unlawfull or voide It will follow then upon these suppositions that Civile Powers may create lawfull impediments of marriage as of civile contracts But neverthelesse that the use of marriage is not to be deemed Lawfull untill the allowance of the Church give them assurance that the limitations given by our Lord and his Apostles to the marriages of Christians and the determinations which thereupon have proceded from the Lawfull power of the Church are not violated by the same Neither is it available to say as some have pretended to say that this right of the Church falls to the State when it professeth Christianity and the maintainance thereof all parties being members or subjects of it No more then that the society of the Church ceaseth and is swallowed up in the Common-wealth when the Soveraigne becomes Christiane Indeed among Gentiles whose Religion being contrived by the devill and his ministers was admitted by civile Powers as an expedient to keep their people in obedience Among Jewes whose religion given by God as a condition of maintaining them in the Land of Promise pretended expresly no more then the civile good of one people it is no marvaile that the determination of all things questionable concerning mariage should lastly resort to the civil Powers
the sword without the authority of the Soveraigne And therefore wee see that afterwards the good King Jehosaphat manifestly gives commission to these Judges at Jerusalem as well as to their inferiours when he restores them to the exercise of theire office according to law upon what occasion soever it may seeme to have been interrupted 2. Chron. XVII 7 8. 9. XIX 4 5 6 7 8 9 And hereupon the Psalme saith CXXII 5. There is the seat of judgement even the seat of the house of David But the Leviathan hereupon argues That as Solomon consecrated the Temple by his own prayers so Christian Princes may in their owne person consecrate Churches and not onely that but ordaine and celebrate the Eucharist and Preach and do all thiâ—gs themselves which their subjects may doe who are but their ministers The answer to which is first That herein he contradicts his own position that by the scriptures that is by Gods Law the right of designing persons to be Ordained and of doing other things of like nature belonges to the people of every Church But the office of solemnizing the ordination by imposition of hands and in like maner of executing other acts of like nature to the ministers of those Churches succeeding the Apostles Seconâ—ly that he is not able to show a reason why the great Turk should not by consequence be able to consecrate Eucharist Preach and do any office wherein Christianity obligeth his Christian subjects to communicate and they accordingly stand bound to receive them at his hands For he challenges not this right for the Soveraigne as Christian but as Soveraigne And therefore a Christian Soveraign can no more do that which every Christian his subject cannot do of this nature then a Soveraign that is not a Christian Lastly that the consequence is not true nor can be proved for the reason aforesaid which if it were not all that he inferreth though never so grosse would follow Indeed there were as I observed three estates established by the Law in that people The Priests the Judges and the Prophets And because established by the Law therefore successive The Priests by birth yet a Corporation by Law as by Law indowed with the rights of their Tribe Therefore when it comes to settle their courses and ministeries in the Temple I have observed in my booke of the rights of the Church p. 230. that this is not done by David alone but with the assistance of the principall of that Tribe For the Judges there is no reason why we should not believe the Tradition of the Jewes that they were all qualified to fit in any of their Courts by imposition of the hands of some that had received the same from Moses and his Judges Though this quality made them onely capable of being Judges to which they were still actually to be chosen by the King or by the Court. So that when the Talmudists relate that King David ordained XXXM on one day they understand that he did not this as King but as qualified to ordaine though as King he might actually make Judges But being zealous of the Law as they describe him spending his time about the niceties of it and having his guard of Cerethites and Pelethites whom they understand to be Doctors all or Scholars of the Law they consequently make us believe that he meant to store the nation wiâ—h persons qualified to be Judges As for the succession of the prophets tha depended meerely upon Gods free Grace though a course of learning and discipline was without question founded by Moses and maintained by his successors to make them fit by such education for the Grace And these being the Schools of the prophets in the Scriptures when the spirit of prophesy failed became the schools of Scribes Doctors and learners of the Law out of whom Judges came As Prophets then had their authority immediately from God so were they the forerunners of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles as our Saviour showeth when he saith Mat. XXIII 34. Behold I send unto you Prophets and Scribes and wisemen and of them ye shall kill and crucifie and of them you shall scourge in your Synagogues and persecute from city to city For God having appointed them by the Law of Deut. XVIII 18-22 to have recourse also to the prophets which he should raise untill the Messias should come in whom S. Steven challengeth that Law to be fulfiled Acts VII 37. if Prophets preaching by Gods commission displeased evill rulers they easily found pretences to quarel the evidence of their commission and to put them to death as false prophets which was that which they did to our Saviour Christ and his Apostles and those who preached Christ afterwards These then having commission from God alone had in them as I showed afore the qualities both of Priests in offering to God that service in spirit truth which Christianity pretendeth and of judges in determining that which should become questionable in the Church And as the Kings of Israel were bound by Gods Lawes to maintaine all those qualities in the execution of their office So the Church being founded and having subsisted three hundred years by this power of the Apostles Constantinâ— and all Christian Princes aster him finding â—â— in that estate become obliged by Gods Law to maintaine the Church whereof they became members by professing Christianity in that estate and quality wherein they become member of it And upon these termes have the Kings of England and all other Christian Princes the same rights in Church matters which the godly Kings of Israel and Christian Emperors are found to have exercised Whereof it shall be enough here to give the most eminent instance that can be alledged in the Heresy of Arius and all the factions that were canvased in the Church to restore it being once suppressed by the Synode of Nicaea Which one act of the Church though the whole power of the Empire in two Emperors Constantius and Valius though perhaps with far different intents laboured to make voide yet they never tooke upon them to do it immediately of themselves but by meanes of Synods which they might work to their intent or by the meanes of persons apposted by them to have the power of the chief Churches And therefore whereas that Synode as it was an act of the Empire was easily recalled by the breath of either of those Emperors as it was an act of the Church it prevailed over all their intentions and by the prevailing of it we continue untainted with the heresy of Arius The reason because the right of the Church was so notorious to all Christians that those Emperors that did not professe Christianity when they did not persecute it made good the acts of it As it is to be seen in that eminent example of Aureliane which I will repeate againe because it is still alledged to argue that Paulus Samosatenus was excommunicated by the secular power of Aureliane But when
it shall appear by Eusebius that the Councile of Antiochia having created a new Bishop and adjudged the possession of the Bishops Palace to him which Paulus Samosatenus defended by force and the Emperor being appealed to by the parties for execution adjudged the possession to him whom the Bishop of Rome and Italy should account lawfull Bishop I suppose I shall not need many words to show any reasonable man the very termes which I hold in this sentence to wit that the matter of it was determined by the Church the force and execution of it came from the Power of the Empire I had purposed here to examine some of those instances produced in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. some passages of Church Writers alledged in the Oxford Doctors Paraenefis to prove the Ecclesiasticall power meerely the effect of the secular because limitable by it But having debated thus farre the bounds between Gods Law and the Lawes of the Church and found the Law of the Church to be nothing but the limitation of Gods Law the force whereof comes from Gods generall Law in founding the Church I find not the least cause to distrust him that admitteth it as one to be turned aside with pretenses of so vast consequence upon such slight appearances I shall therefore thus turn him loose to apply the generall ground upon which I proceed to the particulars that may be alledged out of the ancient Church Onely one I must not leave behinde me the contest between the Emperors and the Popes about the Investâ—â—ures of Churches as carrying in it the meanes of changing the Regular Power of the Pope which I owne into the pretense of that infinite power which infallibility speaketh Yet is it not my purpose to state the case in debate because it would require the examining of many records in point of fact not advancing the discovery of the right a whit more then supposing it stated For supposing the investiture of a Church to signifie a right of contradicting an Election or to signify a right of delivering possession no man admitting the premises can deny that all Princes and States that are Christiane have â—â— them a right to do both though the terme of Investiture seem properly to signify onely the latter as signifying the ceremony of investing some man in the rights of his Church For if the Church be protected in the rights of it by the Lawes of the Land as upon the premises it cannot be denied that upon the States acknowledging the Church as founded by God it ought to be and must needs be protected all the reason in the World will require that the secular power be inabled to except against any mans person as prejudicall to the State and to render no account of such exception to any man as having no superiour in that trust to whom to render it But if under the title of Investiture the right of electing and consecrationg originally resident in the Clergy and People of each Church and the Bishops of the Province be seized into the hands of the secular power by the force thereof constraining each party to do their own parts in admitting the nomination thereof whether allowing it or not whatsoever trouble any Soveraigne procure in such a cause is meeâ— wrong and in a wrong cause The foundation of the Church setling the rights that concurre to the doing of it upon the qualities which it self createth But this is not therefore to say that the Pope or all the Church hath any right to depose such a Prince or to move warre against such a State by what meanes soever it may be done Because that is the effect of temporall power that is soveraigne which the Church hath not in point of right but usurpeth in point of fact by so doing He that can injoyn another man either to eject a Prince or destroy a State upon what terms soever he may dispose of it when that is done as he shall make the tenures of this world to depend upon Christianity so he makes himself Soveraigne in the world that ownes him in the doing it upon the same title of Christianity So the Popes had certainly a wrong cause in stirring warre which they had no title to do The Emperors whether they had a right or a wrong cause which God would punish by suffering the Popes to move warre without a title the state of the case must judge though for the most part in warres both parties are in the wrong insisting upon that which they have no right to insist upon for the termes of peace Let us consider what brought the Popes to this height of really and actually claiming temporall power over Soveraignties that is to be Soveraigne over Soveraignes by moving warre to destroy Princes and States I will suppose here the defection of the Italian forces from the Emperour Leo Isaurus for ejecting all images out of Churches and that he in reprisall for it seized the possessions of the Church of Rome in his dominions and translated the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall through the same upon his Church of Constantinople For in reprisall for this Pepin whose usurpation of the Crown of France Pope Zachary had allowed at the request of Pope Steven constraining the Lâ—mbards to render or to forbear those parts of the Empire which the Emperors at Constantinople were not able to maintaine any more against them bestowed them upon the Church of Rome under his own protection as the case sufficiently shewes especially admitting the Charter of Ludovieus Pius his Grandchilde to be but the confirmation of his Fathers and Grandfathers acts saving the difference of that title under which they were done For the Charter of Ludovicus Pius in Sigonins de Regno Italiae IV. manifestly reserving the Soveraignty to himself and his successors remits both the fruits and the administration of them to the Church charging himselfe to protect it in the same Which burthen we must needs understand that Pepin by his grant did undertake seeing that in point of fact the Church could neither undertake to hold them against the Lombardâ— nor against the Empire which till this act it acknowledged Soveraigne whatsoever in point of right it might do The act of Charles the Great coming between these two upon the ruine of the Lombards that is his own Soveraignty in reason must needs seem to have given the forme to the act of his son The power of this line decaying in Italy and those who had attempted to succeed it failing it is no marvaile if among the States of Italy that contracted with the Germanes to invest them in the same Soveraignty which Charles the Great and his line as Kings of Lombardy by conquest or as declared Emperor by the City of Rome the Head whereof was then the Pope whatsoever that declaration might signify the Pope in behalf of the City and Church of Rome appeared most considerable While the Germanes through their strength at home were able to
bodies the holy Ghost that dwelt in them here raiseth This is that precious pearle and that hid treasure this is that grain of mustard seed that leaven which being purchased at the price of all we have and sowed in the heart and layd up in the past of our thoughts makes all our actions fruitfull to the riches of everlasting happinesse This is that little spot of truth for the maintaining whereof so many bloudy fields of Controversies in Religion are and have been fought by soules that perish by maintaining division in the Church to the prejudice if not the losse of that truth for which they fight As the country alwaies suffers by the warre that is made for it All this while it is to be remembred that Baptisme tieth not onely to professe this faith unto death but to live according to Christianity Whether it be by virtue of Moses Law cleared by our Lord of the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees or by the New Law of Christ clearing the spiritual intent of the Old it is not necessary to salvation for a Christian to know For Irenaeus briefly distinguishing mater of Faith from mater of Knowledge in the Scriptures 1. 2 4. makes all that which concerns the reason of the difference in Gods proceeding under the Law and the Gospel to be mater of abundant knowledge not of necessary faith But it is necessary for the salvation of a Christian to know that by being a Christian he undertakes to suppresse mortify and prevent as far as in him lies even the first motions of concupiscence whether in the lusts of the flesh or the lust of the eyes or the pride of life as our Lord in the Gospel hath clearly laid forth howsoever the Law have expressed or intimated the same And this is that warre with the devil the world and the flesh for the keeping of Gods commandments which our Baptisme undertaketh For there is no difference in things to be done concerning a private Christian as a private Christian that seems to be any considerable ground of division in the Church The substance of our common Christianity in that part seems to remain without dispute In things that are to be believed it were well if it could be said so truly that there is no part of the rule of Faith in dispute In the meane time the substance of Christianity containing whatsoever it is necessary for the salvation of all Christians to know whether in matter of Faith or of maners whereof to speak properly the rule of Faith signifieth onely the first part consisteth onely in that which concerns a particular Christian as such whether to be believed or to be done But what then shall the beliefe of one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church in our Creed signify Onely that there are Christians in the world Shall a Christian be saved by believing that which all Christians see that there is a company of men that call themselves Christians Or shall it therefore be necessary to the salvation of all Christians to know that God hath founded the whole body of the Church consisting of all Churches for a Society and Corporation subsisting by his Law shall it concern the salvation of simple Christians to understand the nature of Corporations and to know how visible communion in Christian Offices makes the Church such a one believing that this comes by Gods appointment I do not imagine any such thing Indeed whosoever allowes no ground of difference between true Christians on the one side and hereticks and schismaticks on the other side cannot admit the belief of one Catholicke Church for an article of his Creed For had there never been heresie or schisme the communion of all Christians with all Christians going forwards without interruption the Church had been no lesse Catholicke then now that it is called Catholicke to distinguish it from heresies and schismes which prevailed sometimes in some places but never spread nor lasted with the Church But had there been no profession qualifying for communion with the Church Had there been no power in the Church to limit the Order and circumstance of Communion in the Offices of Christianity it could never have been visible whom a Christian was to communicate with professing himself bound by believing one Catholicke Church to communicate with it Because by this meanes it was visible and because being visible an obligation was acknowledged of communicating with it the profession of this obligation was to be part of the common Christianity which the Creed was to signify But when it is no more visible whom a Christian is to communicate with by reason of division in the Church what is it then that resolves whom a Christian is to communicate with That is indeed the question which this whole businesse intends to resolve For the Reformation having occasioned division in the Church the parties are both visible but which is the true Church remaines invisible so long as it remaines in despute For though it be not invisible to that reason which proceeds aright upon due principles yet that is not required of all Christians that would be saved And therefore if it be not visible to the common reason of all men it is invisible This I alledge to no further purpose then to show how much all parties stand obliged to procure the reunion of the Church as answerable for the soules that may miscarry by chusing amisse in that which Gods ordinance makes visible but mens disorder invisible to common sense For the more difficult the way of salvation proves by this meanes the more shall all estates stand obliged to clear it Let us then see wherein the difficulty of the choice consisteth let us see what satisfaction the parties tender common sense that salvation is to be had by leaving of them The Word and the Sacraments are the markes of the true Church So say the Doctors of the Reformation so say perhaps their confessions of Faith It were too long to dispute that But how are these markes distinctive For I suppose they pretend not to make known the Reformed Churches to constitute the true Church in opposition to the Church of Rome by markes common to both And will any common sense allow that the Church of Rome will grant that they have not the word of God or the Sacraments which they allow the Reformed to have If you adde the pure preaching of the Word and the pure ministring of the Sacraments you advance not a foot For is common sense able to judge that the Reformed way is pure that of the Church of Rome impure It judgeth that they who call it so think so Whether it be so or not it must come under dispute And appealing to the Scriptures it appeareth that common sense is not judge in the meaning and consequence of them upon which the resolution depends It is therefore manifest that the preaching of the word and the ministring of the Sacraments is no mark of the Church unlesse
do not deny that a Christian may attaine to a kind of morall assurance concerning the sincerity of another Christian That he is in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods Spirit Not by any imediate dictate of the holy Ghost to his own heart which is not promised to that purpose Not by any vehemence or suddennesse in the change which made him so inabling him to designe the time and place and meanes by which it came to passe that it may appear the work of Gods Spirit preventing and swallowing up all concurrence of his own free choice For this the change of the end and designe of a mans whole life and the course of it admits not But by force of those arguments and effects of it visible in his conversation which the prudence of a sincere Christian can impute to nothing else But I deny therefore that every true Christian can by the ordinary meanes which God allowes be so assured of the sincerity of other true Christians as thereby to be priviledged to forsake the Church of God in which they live as consisting of others as well as of such to retire themselves into Congregations in which they may serve God in that order which the sincerity of their Christianity assureth them to containe the purity of Gods ordinances For it is manifest that the gift of Gods Spirit requisite to the salvation of all Christians is not promised to this effect as to give them that discretion which inables to value the consequence of such appearances And if it were and if all true Christians could attaine assurance of all Christians of whom the question may be made whether true Christians or not yet hath not God provided that the truest and sincerest Christians retire themselves from communion with those of whom there is no reasonable presumption that they are such but are onely qualified members of the Church by such Lawes as may comprise all the world professing Christianity in the communion of the Church For whatsoever our Lord hath foretold of the Church in the Gospel as of a net that catcheth both good and bad fish as of a floore containing chaffe as well as graine as of a flock containtaining goates as well as sheep as the Arke contained as well unclean beasts as clean necessarily falls upon the visible Church and hath been so accepted by the Church in the case of the Donatists to assure us that the good are not defiled by communion with the bad but obliged to live in it for the exercise of their charity and patience in seeking their amendment For separation upon pretense of satisfaction in the Christianity of some to them who professe not to have it of others as it carrieth in it a necessary appearance of spirituall pride in overseeing all those that concurre not in it So it sets up a banner to the imposture of hypocrites and turns the pretense of sincere Christianity to the justifying of whatsoever it is that a faction so constituted shall take for it Not measuring mens persons by the common Christianity but the common Christianity by that which appeares in the persons of those who without due grounds are supposed true Christians exclusively to others The ground of Congregations being thus voide the constitution of them must needs involve the sacriledge of Schisme in the work and therefore a nullity in the effects of it The Baptisme which they give void of the effect of Grace The Eucharist though consecrated in the forme of the Church which it is not to be doubted that the Novatians Meletians and Donatists held because they are not blamed in it Nor do I doubt that Tertullians Montanists did the like whatsoever abuse might come in among them afterwards by being separated from the Church void of the thing signified by it The prayers of the Church void of that effect which the promise of hearing the prayers thereof importeth whatsoever Offices the Church exerciseth and solemnizeth therewith How much more the constitution of Presbyteries which pretending no such thing as separating the clean from the unclean admits to the communion upon no further pretense of Reformation then answering the Assemblies Catechisme at the demand of Triers constituted by those who contrary to that solemn promise upon supposition whereof they were advanced to Orders in the Church of England usurpe the Power not of their Bishops but of the whole Church in prescribing an order of Ecclesiasticall communion in all Offices of the Church without warrant from it Ordaining those who undertake to warrant the salvation of poor souls as sufficiently provided for thereby by becomming their Ministers to be their Ministers For what pretense can colour this usurpation can obscure the Sacriledge of Schisme in the act the nullity of Gods promises in the effect of it when the difference consists in renoâ—ncing that authority which themselves deny not to have been in possession according to Gods Law pretending further so strongly as they know by virtue of it In disclaiming single heads of Churches and the Clergy that think themselves bound to doe nothing without them though limited both by the Law of the Church and the Law of the Land And in setting up themselves in their stead to manage that authority without the exercise whereof themselves beleeve Christianity cannot subsist by Presbyteries and Synods As if the tyranny of an Oligarchy were not more insufferable then the tyranny of a Monarch Or as if there were not presumption of tyrannizing in those who find themselves free from the bond of these Lawes which fall to the ground with the authority that used them to use the authority they usurpe at their owne discretion which is necessarily the law of all Government that is not limited by lawes which it acknowledgeth For if they alledge that they provide us a confession of Faith which is a strange allegation not alledging either what we wanted before or what we get by it I shall quickly bring them to the triall by demanding of them to spue out that damnable Heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts in turning the Covenant of Baptisme into an absolute promise of life everlasting to them for whome Christ died without conditioning that they beleeve and live like Christians Which they can never doe without contradicting themselves untill they make that Faith which onely justifieth to consist in that loyalty wherewith a man undertakes his Baptisme out of a choice the freedome whereof excludes all predetermination of the will though by that Grace which effectually brings it to passe For this condition making all assurance of salvation the fruit of justifying faith not the act of it as if one could be assured of it by beleeving that he is sure of it obligeth a man to his Christianity for that very reason which first moves all men to be Christians to obtaine the promise which depends upon the performing of it The substance therefore of Christianity consisting in it that baptisme which inacteth it not that Eucharist which
Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea may perhaps relish either it was not publickly taken notice of when it was published or passed over in silence for the present in respect of his merit toward the Church As it must be said of his opinion concerning souls flitting into new bodies As for Euseb of Caesarea and the author of the Constitutions which are both charged in this point Eusebius living in the time when the consent of the Church over-ruled the contrary rather evidenceth then interrupteth that Tradition which condemneth him if he agree not with it But the author of the Constitutions is not known at what time he lived to write in the name of Clemens the Apostles Scholar that which for his part he thought most likely to come from the Apostles Whether or no he might think it became him writing in that name to use such terms as he found the ancientest Church-Writers use before the businesse of Arius Whether or no he might mistake himself in doing so I will not dispute But being hard to believe that he writ till the heresie of Arius and Eâ—nâ—mâ—us was down As I can give my self no good reason why he should bring in Arius under the habit of the Apostles so I see the suspicion which he hath contracted in a manner as ancient as the credit of his book in the Church After all this if any man marvail that Alexander Bishop of Alexandria should think so slightly of Arius his opinion as in debating it sometimes to side with him sometimes with his adversaries according to Sozomenus Eccles Hist I. 15. Let him consider that the Ecclesiasticall Historians informe us that the difference of Arius was commenced at a Consistory That is at a meeting of the Clergy to debate the businesse Onely Sozomenus that there had been divers meetings about it In which Alexander had not declared himself but spoken sometimes on this side and sometimes on that Not because there is any appearance in the story that Arius himself could have construed his procedings as if he had been doubtfull which side to choose But because any wise man in his place would have thought it the way to preserve his authority over Arius by not declaring himself party against him till he appeared untractable by that reason which his authority must inforce when it self would not serve the turn As for the great Constantine who in his Leter to the Church of Alexandria declareth many times that the question concerned not the substance of Faith It must be said that being no Christian as yet nor catechized in the Faith his information failed either in matter of fact reporting the position of Arius in such terms as might bear a good construction in which what latitude there is it may appear by the premises or in point of right making that not to concern the substance of Faith which indeed doth For those terms in which all the Ecclesiastical Histories agree that the debate was stated are such as indeed do concern the substance of Faith Neither is there any mark in the writings of the Fathers before this time upon which it can be said that any of them thought that there was a time when the Word of God which being incarnate in our Lord Christ was not but was made by God of nothing after that time Which are the characters that distinguish the heresie of Arius Set aside then the Constitutions Eusebius Origen and his Scholar Dionysius as questionable in point of fact or as granted that the sense of their words is not reconcileable with the Faith in point of right the retraction of Dionysius makes as much more for the Faith then his misprision condemned by Gennadius de Dogm Eccl. Cap. IV. and Facundus X. 5. against it as the rejecting of Sabellius makes more for the same then the doubtfull words of Gregory of Nâ—ocaesarea against That which is to be said thereupon is that there can be therefore no reason to blame the Councill of Nicaea for adding to the Creed the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to oblige the Arians to the sense of the Church S. Athanasius in his Treatise de Actis Conc. Nicen. hath shewed us that it was introduced to cut off those equivocations whereby they ought to cover their owne sense under those other words which were propounded as capeable of the Catholick sense He that will say that this course ought not to have been held or that having taken effect it ought not to have been retained may as well say that the faith of Christ or the Unity of Gods service in that faith is not to be preserved For being once questioned therâ— must be a Rule and a mark to discern Christians from Hereticks I observe therefoâ—e likewise that the troubles which Arius occasioned in the Church never came to an end till the word person in Latine and hypostasis in Greek was admitted in opposition to the word essence or nature included in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council of Nicaea had introduced into the Creed that the difference between the Church and Arius might be stated upon the expresse terms of three persons and one nature For it is evident by S. Jerome Epist LVII that the terme of hypostasis for person was not then received who writes to Pope Damasus to be authorized by him whether to admit or to refuse it But as after that time we hear no further question of the term so under the Emperor Gratiane and Pope Damasus we find the dispute extinguished But I say neverthelesse that there is no cause therefore to imagine that the sense of the Church and the faith thereof hath received any change by the use of new terms which the necessity of preventing Hereticks hath obliged the Church to introduce And I say as the others said that the importance and consequence of the said new terms ought to be reduced to that force which the sense of the Church according to the Scriptures alloweth or rather prescribeth And that whosoever shall take upon him under pretense of the most unquestionable decrees that any age of the Church hath produced to prescribe against that sense which the primitive records of the Church do inforce in so doing sets up the authority of that present Church against the Tradition of the Catholick And after all this shall the Socinians be admitted to alledge that S. Hilary quittâ—th a doubt whether the holy Ghost is to be called God or not Surely the Socinians cannot be admitted to alledge this unlesse they will be content to submit to S. Hilary in the whole businesse Nay unlesse they will stand to the Church to which S. Hilary stands But for those that are not Socinians and would be satisfied I will not use that wretched answer of Erasmus in that excellent preface to S. Hilarys works That the Church hath since decreed otherwise As if there were not a reason why the Church so decreed or as if he were not bound to render that reason
for his discharge But I will say thaâ— as in the case of the Nicene Creed and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it appeareth that the Church may be necessitated to use such expressions as have not been in use afore and not onely to allow particular persons as Doctors of the Church to use them but to give them pasport and authority in the publick service of the Church And that people or Doctors of the Church should stick at them when they are first frequented is no more to be marvailed at then that the Socinians should marvaile that the Son of God who acknowledges to come from the Father and to receive all from him should by any man be acknowledged God from everlasting Unlesse it be marvailed that all that allow it not are not Socinians For neither is it any marvaile that men should marvaile at the due consequences of those things which themselves admit Nor that marvailing at them some should be Socinians others continue Christians All this would be good in case it did appear that S. Hilary had any where put any doubt whether the holy Ghost may be called God or not But the observation of Erasmus bears no more then this That S. Hilary is no where found to call the H. Ghost God which who will not laugh at unlesse it could be said that S Hilary no way saies as much as that is For shall the Faith of the Church or shall the Faith of S. Hilary depend upon the use of that word Shall it not serve his turne that he useth words signiâ—ying the same Which had Erasmus been so diligent to collect as the Socinians have been forward to make advantage of his negligence they had never drawn that observation into consequence He that would be satisfied of S. Hilaries Faith as well as of the Faith of the Church before S. Hilary in this point Let him peruse what Petavius hath collected Dogâ—atum Theol. 3. de Trinitate VII 7-15 I am now before I leave this point to consider what the light of reason argues against the mystery of the Trinity which I acknowledge to seem so strong that it seems to forbid all use of reason in them that admit the Christian Faith For seeing all use of reason supposes this principle that those things which agree or disagree in a third agree or disagree one with the other And that the mystery of the Trinity inferres Though the Father is God and the Sonne God yet that the Sonne is not the Father It seems it cannot be maintained without disowning the use of reasonable discourse This difficulty may be and is branched out into many difficulties It is argued If so Then shall there be three Gods the Father one the Sonne another and the Holy Ghost a third Or three substancâ—s of one Godhead every person being God which is the substance of the Godhead Or that the same thing the Godhead shall subsist thrice to wit in the Father Sonne and holy Ghost It is argued If so Then shall every person be three persons Because every person is God that is Father Sonne and holy Ghost That the persons of the Godhead shall be both really the same and really diverse or not the same Being the same God yet severall persons It is argued further If so Then shall the Sonne of God be his own Sonne Because Sonne of that God which the Sonne is Then may there as well be more Sonnes and then infinite Then shall he be from everlasting because God and not from everlasting because Sonne Then should the Father and the holy Ghost have been incarnate because one with the Sonne who is in carnate Then cannot the Sonne of God be man because God before But all these consequences containe but one and the same difficulty from which thy proceed as the same souldiers are showed in severall armes and the same meats served with severall sauses For when the Father Sonne and holy Ghost persons subsisting before they are distinguished by our understanding are said to be one God the ordinary discourse of reason and the language that men use inferres three substances each subsisting of it self that is three Gods that is persons of the Godhead every one of them Father Sonne and holy Ghost as God is the same with themselves supposing one God not the same supposing three persons Againe the Sonne being God as the Father and the holy Ghost are and Sonne of God it is no more then that he should be his own Sonne That he should be from everlasting and yet Sonne and no more Sonnes then he no more then that he is God and the Sonne of God both That he onely incarnate never a whit difficult then that being the same God he is neither Father nor holy Ghost To answer then this one though great difficulty First I insist that the Socinians who object it which may be said of Arius or Aetius or whosoever may be found to have objected the like cannot avoid as great inconveniences if they mean to be Christians For the Socinians pretending to honour the Sonne as the Father the Arians the Sonne and the holy Ghost both I demand what greater inconvenience there can be objected to one that pretends to be a Christian then to give the honour due to God alone to his creature Then that the Sonne of God should be God and a creature both Then that he should create himself as both God and creature Then that being made a man he should be exalted to the power and glory of God whereupon the honour of God becomes due If reason and Faith agree both together to assure us that there is a God that made all things It is not possible that any thing should be imagined more impossible then that one and the same subject should be truly qualified God and creature He that can imagine a greater contradiction a greater inconvenience a greater inconsistence then that the same thing should necessarily be what it is and yet that of it self it may be and may not be what it is Alwayes actually the same and yet capable of being what it was not sometimes The cause of all things and yet depending on that cause which it self is and so before and after it self Well may he imagine some greater inconvenience then this that our Lord Christ made a man as other men are onely conceived by the holy Ghost without man of a Virgine should be made God and indued with power and glory to which the worship and honour of the onely true God is due But let them that hope hereby to remove the stumbling block of the Trinity in Unity from before the Jews consider with themselves what satisfaction they can hope to give them or any reasonable creature by inviting them to give the honour of God to a creature called God because of that power and Glory which God hath given it above other creatures For seeing the same power and glory which God hath given it he might have
the same effect there is no cause why he should be excused of Idolatry for his paines But withall he cannot be excused of contradicting himselfe as grossely as he that maintaines those Saints or Angels to be that one true God whom he acknowledges not to be that God but his creatures If there be reason to presume that they who acknowledge Saints or Angels their Mediators Intercessors or advocates to God intend to commit Idolatry by contradicting themselves thus grossely there may be reason to thinke that they count them their Mediators Intercessors or Advocates to God to that effect to which Christ alone is our Mediator Intercessor or Advocate But if whosoever is accepted to pray for an other is necessarily by so doing his Mediator Intecessor or Advocate to him with whom he is admitted to deal on his behalfe by his prayers then will it be necessary to limite the worke of mediation to that effect which may be allowed to the intercession of the Saints or Angels for us if we will have them to be to purpose Certainely neither could Iob intercede for his friends nor Samuel for the Israelites nor Abraham for Abimelech or Pharao nor any of Gods Prophets for any that had or were to have recourse to them for that purpose but they must be by so doing Mediators intercessors and Advocates for them with God For neither can the mediation of Saints or Angels nor of any prophet or other that can be persumed to have favour with God be to any effect but that which the termes of that reconciliation which our Lord Christ hath purchased for us doe settle or allow But he that saith the Saints and Angels pray for us saith not that we are to pray to Saints or Angels nor can be say it without Idolatry intending that we are to do that to them which they do to God for us On the other side though that which we doe to them and that which they doe to God be both called praying yet it wil be very difficult for him that really and actually apprehendeth all Saints and Angels to be Gods creatures to render both the same honour though supposing not granting the same Christianity to injoyn both But to come to particulars I will distinguish three sorts of prayers to Saints wheâ—her taught or allowed to be taught in the Church of Rome The first is of those that are made to God but to desire his blessings by and through the merits and intercession of his Saints I cannot give so fit an example as out of the Canon of the Masse which all the Westerne Churches of that communion do now use There it is said communicantes memoriam venerantes omnium Sanctorum tuorum quorum meritis precibusque concedas ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio Communicating in and reverencing the memory of such and such and of all thy Saints by whose merit and prayer grant that in all things we may be guarded by thy protection and helpe There is also a short prayer for the Priest to say when he comes to the Altar as he findes opportunity Oramus te Domine per merita sanctorum tuorum quorum reliquia hic sunt omnium sanctorum ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea We pray thee Lord by the merits of the Saints whose reliques are here and all Saints that thou wouldest vouchsafe to release me all my sins And on the first Sunday in Advent mentioning the Blessed Virgin they pray Vt qui vere eam matrem Dei credimus ejus apud te intercessionibus adjuvemur That we who believe her truely the mother of God may be helped by her intercessions with thee The second is that which their Litanies containe which though I doe not undertake to know how they are used or how they ought to be used by particular Christians that is how far voluntary how far obligatory yet the forme of them is manifest that whereas you have in them sometimes Lord have mercy upon us Christ have mercy upon us Holy Trinity one God have mercy upon us You have much oftner the Blessed Virgine repeated again and againe under a number of her attributes you have also all the Saints and Angels or such as the present occasion pretends for the object of the devotion which a man tenders named and spoken to with Ora pronobis that is Pray for us The blessed virgine some saie with te rogamus audi nos We beseech thee to heare us One thing I must not forget to observe that the prayers which follow those Litanies are almost alwaies of the first kind That is to say addressed directly to God but mentioning the intercession of Saints or Angels for the meanes to obtain our prayers at his hands The third is when they desire immediately of them the same blessings spirituall and temporall which all Christians desire of God There is a Psalter to be seen with the Name of God changed every where into the Name of the blessed Virgine There is a book of devotion in French with this title Moyen de bien seruir prier adorer la Vierge Marie The way well to serve pray to and adore the blessed Virgine There are divers forms of prayer as well as excessive speeches concerning her especially and other Saints quoted in the Answer to the Jesuites Challenge pag. 330-345 Of those then the first kind seems to me utterly agreeable with Christianity importing onely the exercise of that Communion which all members of Gods Church hold with all members of it ordained by God for the meanes to obtaine for one another the Grace which the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ hath purchased for us without difference whether dead or alive Because we stand assured that they have the same affection for us dead or alive so farre as they know us and our estate and are obliged to desire and esteem their prayers for us as for all the members of Christs mysticall body Neither is it in reason conceivable that all Christians from the beginning should make them the occasion of their devotions as I said out of any consideration but this For as concerning the terme of merit perpetually frequented in these prayers it hath been alwawes maintained by those of the Reformation that it is not used by the Latine Fathers in any other sense then that which they allow Therefore the Canon of the Masse and probably other prayers which are still in use being more ancient then the greatest part of the Latine Fathers there is no reason to make any diffficulty of admitting it in that sense the ground whereof I have maintained in the second Book The third taking them at the foot of the leter and valuing the intent of those that use them by nothing but the words of them are meer Idolatries as desiring of the creature that which God onely gives which is the worship of the creature for the Creator God blessed for evermore And were we bound to make
the acts of them that teach these prayers the acts of the Church because it tolerates them and maintaines them in it in stead of casting them out it would be hard to free that Church from Idolatrie which whoso admitteth can by no meanes grant it to be a Church the being whereof supposeth the worship of one God exclusive to any thing else But the words of them are capable of the same limitation that I gave to the words of our Lord when I said that they whom Christians do good to here may be said to receive them into everlasting habitations because God does it in consideration of them and of the good done them And so when Irenaeus calls the Virgine Mary the advocate of Eve V. 19. he that considers his words there and III. 33. shall find that he saith it not because she prayed for her but because she believed the Angels message and submitted to Gods will and so became the meanes of saving all though by our Lord Christ who pleadeth even for her as well as for Eve Ground enough there is for such a construction even the belief of one God alone that stands in the head of our Creed which we have no reason to thinke the Church allowes them secretly to renounce whom she alloweth to make these prayers And therefore no ground to construe them so as if the Church by allowing them did renounce the ground of all her Christianity But not ground enough to satisfie a reasonable man that all that make them do hold that infinite distance between God and his saints and Angels of whom they demand the same effects which if they hold not they are Idolaters as the Heathen were who being convinced of one Godhead as the Fathers challenge to their faces divided it into one principall and divers that by his gift are such How shall I presume that simple Christians in the devotions of their hearts understand that distance of God from his creatures which their words signify not which the wisest of their teachres will be much troubled to say by what figure of speech they can allow it Especially if it be considered how little reason or interest in religion there can be to advance the reverence of Christian people towards the Saints or Angels so farre above the reason and ground which ought to be the spring-head of it For so farre are we from any Tradition of the Catholicke Church for this that the admonition of Epiphanius to the Collyridians takes-hold of it Haer. LXXIX For they also would have been Christians being a sort of women in Arabia who in imitation of the Eucharist offered to the Virgine Mary and communicated Therefore Epiphanius reproves them by the Custome of the Church that no such thing was ever done in the Church as well as by the ground of Christianity that Christians worship onely one God This admonition then takes hold though not of the Church yet of the prayers which it alloweth signifying the same with their oblations So doth the admonition of Saint Ambrose in Rom. I. to them who reserve nothing to God that they give not to his servants So doth that of Saint Augustine de vera Rel. Cap. LV. that our religion is not to consist in worshipping the dead And that an Angel forbad S. John to worship him but onely God whose fellow-servants they were So doth the argument of S. Gregory Nyssene contra Eunom IV. and Athanasius contra Arian III. concluding our Lord to be God because he is worshipped which Cornelius was forbid by Saint Peter Saint John by the Angel to do to them saith Athanasius In fine so dangerous is the case that whoso communicateth in it is no way reasonably assured that he communicateth not in the worship of Idols Onely the Church of England having acknowledged the Church of Rome a true Church though corrupt ever since the Reformation I am obliged so to interpret the prayers thereof as to acknowledge the corruption so great that the prayers which it alloweth may be Idolatries if they be made in that sense which they may properly signify But not that they are necessarily Idolatries For if they were necessarily Idolatries then were the Church of Rome necessarily no Church The being of Christianity presupposing the worship of one true God And though to confute the Heretickes the stile of moderne devotions leaves nothing to God which is not attributed to and desired of his Saints Yet it cannot be denied they may be the words of them who believe that God alone can give that which they desire The second sort it is confessed had the beginning in the flourishing times of the Church after Constantine The lights of the Greek and Latine Church Basil Nazianzene Nyssene Ambrose Jerome Augustine Chrysostome Cyrils both Theodoret Fulgentius Gregory the Great Leo more or rather all after that time have all of them spoken to the Saints departed and desired their assistance But neither is this enough to make a Tradition of the Church For the Church had been CCC years before it began Irenaeus is mistaken when he is alledged for it as I said even now Cardinall Bellarmine alleges out of Eusebius de Praeparat XIII 10. Vota ipsis facimus We make our prayers to them But the Greek beares onely We make our prayers to God at their monuments Athanasius de sanctissima deipara whom he quotes is certainly of a later date then Athanasius Out of S. Hillary I see nothing brought nor remember any thing to be brought to that purpose In fine after Constantine when the Festivalls of the Saints being publickly celebrated occasioned the confluence of Gentiles as well as Christians and innumerable things were done which seemed miracles done by God to attest the honour done them and the truth of Christianity which it supposed I acknowledge those great lights did think fit to addresse themselves to them as petitioners but so at the first as those that were no wayes assured by our common Christianity that their petitions arrived at their knowledge You have seen Saint Augustine acknowledge that they must come by such meanes as God is no way tied to furnish Gregory Nazianzene speakes to Gorgonia in his Oration upon her and to Constantius in his first oration against Juliane but under a doubtfull condition if they were sensible of what he spake Enough to distinguish praying to God from any addresse to a creature though religion be the ground of it And when the apparitions about their monuments were held unquestionable yet was it questioned whether the same souâ— could be present at once in places of so much distance or Angels appear like them as you may see in the answer aforesaid pag. 391. 394. Nay Hugo de S. Victore in Cassander Epist XIX hath inabled him to hold that the Litanies do not suppose that the Saints hear them and therefore are expounded by some to signify conditionall desires if God grant them to come to their knowledge But of that I speak