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
that all are baptized infants the recognisance of our Christianity then received cannot be made to so good purpose as limiting the solemnity thereof to the Bishops own hands I could say the same of Ordination and would say the same if I did finde any irreprovable custom for Priests to ordain The Canon of Ancyra I have expounded otherwise and Eutychius his relation hath been rejected for a fable elswhere I finde by unanswerable arguments that the consent of the Church made Ordinations good which for the act of those by whom they were solemnized were utterly void The case of Ischyras and the Meletians is famous Pretending to have been made Priest by Coluthus a Schismatick Bishop under Meletus by the Council which Hosius was at hee is made a Lay-man with the rest of the Meletians And upon this account Athanasius Apolog. II. insists that there could be no sacrilege committed in breaking his Chalice because there is neither Consecration nor Church among Schismaticks Yet were these Ordinations admitted for good by the Council of Nicaea provided they stood to the Order of it Therefore Athanasius excepts further that Meletius did not give up Ischyras his name in the list of his Clergy The same had been the case of the Donatists had they been admitted by the Church every one in his order as I said Melchiades Pope was content they should be The same is the case which Leo I resolves Rusticns Bishop of Narbonne in Epist XCII cap. II. allowing those Ordinations to stand good upon certain terms which of themselves were void If it could appear that the Church did at the first accept for Bishops of Alexandria whomsoever XII Presbyters of his Church should install I would conclude him no less Bishop by the consent of his suffragans whom the Priests advancing to the higher Throne had set over themselves then had three of them consecrated him by imposition of hands But finding that a fable and no other instances alleged upon any good ground I conclude S. Jerome and S. Chrysostomes credit unquestionable witnessing no more than they might see and affirming the Power of Ordaining to be the Bishops peculiar as indeed most concerning the state of his Church It is said that Novatus Presbyter of the Church of Carthage made Felicissimus Deacon of that Church S. Cypriane Epist XLIX But it is said also that hee made Novatianus Bishop of Rome Both by the hands of his Faction whose names you have there Epist LV. It is said that Eustathius being removed from the Sea of Antiochia in the year CCCXXVIII Paulinus who was not made Bishop there till CCCLXII governed the Church there with his fellow Presbyters As also when Meletius was set asidea while after did Flavianus and Diodorus Theodoret Eccl. Hist I. 21. II. 28. IV. 12 14. Surely having Catholick Bishops on all sides they might govern the widowhood of the Church without medling with the Bishops peculiar It is said that Apollinaris was made Bishop of Laodiâ—â—a by a part of the Clergy and people and by him Vitalis Bishop of the party which he had gained at Antiochia Theodoret V. 3. that the Novatians had their Churches in Constantinople and the adjacent Provinces yet never were headed by any Bishop that fell from the Church and therefore made themselves all Ministers As if Apollinaris could not as well finde Bishops to ordain him bearing up the party that chose him as Audius in Epiphanius Haer. LXX found a Bishop as ready as himself to fall from the Church and to make him a Bishop As if the Novatians being in likelyhood planted from Rome could not have their Bishops ordained by their party there Câ—rtainly it is a desperate attempt to perswade us that in the time of Gregory of Tours any Priest should ordain as Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne because hee reporteth Hist V. 5. that one of them being chosen by a party of the Clergy and people kept possession for above XX years For pretending that the neighbor Bishops did him wronâ— in not consecrating him hee might by favor at Court hold the possession which hee had got not medling with imposition of hands But the Christianity of Scotland makes a great noise even during those times when it cannot be made to appear that any Scots dwelt in Scotland Which makes mee mervail that this objection should be sound in the Preface to the X English Histories For that the relations of Hector Boise or John Maire or Buchanan as ignorant as his predecessors though in better Latine should be swallowed by those that could not judg though it had been against their interest it had not been strange But that a man of such skill in all antiquiâ—ies should repeat an ungrounded relation of certain Priests called Câ—ldâ—i that â—aâ—e their own Bishops without any mark of historical truth upon it is an argument of more will than skill to do â—ischief in the Church But after Christianity was planted as well among the Picts as the Scots in Scotland by S. Columb it is argued that the Bishops of Duresme and oâ—hers in England that sprung from that plantation were made by Priests onely of S. Columbs Monastery in his Island Which men of learning would not do if common sense could persuade them not to imploy their learning to make men believe that it is not light at noon S. Columb himself is condemned by the Bishops of Ireland of S. Patricks plantation to Penance for having a hand in bloud as you may see by the Collections already quoted A Bishops Sea is planted in the Island where hee builds his Monastery Shall wee imagine S. Columb made him a Bishop who lived and died a Priest and an Abbot or the Bishops that sent S. Columb upon this worthy imployment for an abatement or commutation of his Penance It was the time when S. Kentigerne his good friend went to Rome to clear himself that hee was made but by one Bishop as his life relateth Is there any age in which it can be said that there was Christianity among the Scots and not Bishops unless it be the time of Buchanans fables And therefore though as Bede saith that Monastery ruled even the Bishops for the reverence of their learning and holiness Yet for the authority of Ecclesiastical proceedings there is no doubt to be made that such things must come from the Bishops though there is no mention of thâ—m because neither Bede nor any soul could think there would ever be any man so extravagant as to question it Yet that learned Preface argueth that certainly the Culdei in Scotland had the Power of making their Bishop or Bishops from this beginning and that they held it till Turgot was made Bishop of S. Andrews MCVIII That Ninianus Bishop of Galloway was no otherwise made because Plecthelm was ordained upon a new account afterwards which certainly can be imputed to no other reason than this That Wine Bishop of Winchester in Bede III. 28. was the onely regularly ordained Bishop of
in the visible communion of the same offices of Christianity if it be free for the parts of iâ— to withdraw themselves from the Lawes which have been received by the whole to limit the circumstances of their communion though not the conditions of it I have but one point more to mention before I leave this subject concerning what offices every degree is by Gods Law or by Canon Law able to minister in the Church necessary here to be mentioned where I have showed what persons are inabled to give Law to the Church and to do by consequence those acts wherein the execution of Law consisteth For by the premises the truth of that which I have proposed in the Right of the Church more clearly appears then it could appear there that the offices of Christianity which severall degrees are inabled to minister do argue the interest of those respective degrees in the Government of the Church Ordinations therefore wholly reserved to the Bishop as not to be made without his consent Saving such Ordinations of inferiour Ministers as not much concerning the state of his Church he may by way of delegation referre to his Presbyters or rurall Bishops Excommunications likewise as concerning the beeing of every Christian as a member of the Church As for the assistance concurrence and consent of the Presbyters of each Cathedrall Church in and to the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons I referre my selfe to that which I have said elsewhere Seeing it were a thing ridiculous to require that all the Presbyters of each Diocese should concurre to all such Ordinances As for the ordaining of Bishops the rule is plain that being a part of the Provincial Synode no meere Bishop is to be ordained without the consent of the Synode the Bishop of the Mother City alwayes concurring Though all reason requiring that he who is to govern be taken out of the bosome of those whom he is to govern there is a right and priviledge of nomination due to the Clergy and of approbation or suffrage to the people of the Church For it is a thing most certain that the interest of the People in the Elections of Bishops in the ancient Church which is still more clear in the Election of Presbyters was grounded onely upon the knowledge which they must needs have of persons proposed either to approve them which was called their suffrage or otherwise Not that they had any right to go before their leaders the Clergy in nomination or to oblige the consent of the Synode of the Province Though it is true that many times they did prevent both and prevail and might without inconvenience so do when the eminence of some person was so discernable that their grosser judgements could noâ— mistake in the choice though transgressing their rank in demanding even the worthiest before their turn came The same rule holds in the ordaining of superiour Bishops seeing they have all their Church their People their Clergy and their Synode The difference that S. Austine Breviculo Collationis III. diei observes in the consecrating of the Pope that it is done by â—he Bishop of Ostia not by any Metropolitane is an exception to a rule So was Dionysâ—us ordained in the year CCLIX if we beliâ—ve the acts of S. Laurence And therefore that Pelagius I. was ordained by two Bishops and a Priest of Ostia as his life in Anastasius relateth by the strictness of the Nicâ—ne Canon voids it For how can he have caried the greater part of the Bishops The condescension of the Apostles Canon and consent ex postfacto might make it good and valid by the same reason as afore The state of particular Christians is not of such consequence to the Châ—rch that it should be regularly the businesse of a Synod though for the assistance concurâ—ence and consent of the Clergy of each Church I referre my self to that which I have said elsewhere â—nd which would be too particular to be debated in this abridgement As for the mater of Penance in things that come not to the knowledge of the Church I have no cause to repent me of thâ—t which I have said in the Right of the Church where I have showed that Pâ—nance and Absolution in the inward Court of the Conscience extends as farre as the Communion of the â—ucharist from which Penance excludes and to which Absolution restores That all Priests and none but Pâ—iests receive by their Ordination power of celebrating the Eucharist that is to say of consecrating and communicating the same and that it cannot be done by any other without very great Sacrilege And that for an argument of the Power of the Keys in the hand of every Priest though limitable by the rule and custome of the Church to the inward Court of the conscience That the offices of Preaching and Baptizing â—re regularly communicable to Deacons but in case of necessity even to thoâ—e of the people alwaies by delegation from their Superiors the Bishops In sign whereof neither was it the cusâ—ome that any man should consecrate the Eucharist Preach or Baptize in the Bishops prâ—sâ—nce but himself or by his appointment As for the reading of the Scriptures and the sâ—nging of Psalms in the Church it is so well known to have been the Deacons office in the ancient Church that there were severall ranks of Deacons appointed for those sâ—vâ—ral works Lectores Psâ—lâ—ae which now like those in the Church of Rome help to make the inferiour Orders the rule of the Church being grounded upon undeniable wisdome and the authority of S. Paul forbidding novâ—ces to be promoted that exercise in the inferiour offices of the Clergy might be a condition requisiâ— to advance unto superiour degrees in the Clergy Now for thâ— celebrating and blessing of Mariage by Priests only I must go no further at present because having showed that it is to be allowed by the Church I have not yet showed that it is to be solemnized by the blessing of the Church CHAP. XXI Of the times of God service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of meats and measure of Fasting Of the keeping o four Lords Birthday and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service HAving thus showed first what are the Powers of the Church and then in whose hands they rest and having said before that the determining and limiting of all circumstances for the exercise of those offices of Gods service for the Communion whereof the Church stands and also of thoâ—e qualities which render men capable to communicate in that same is totally reserved to the Church so farr as Gods Law hath not prevented the determination of it We are now to consider the
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
the Synod of Antiochia mad when they writ the Leter which you may reade in Eusebius VII 30. in the name of the Churches represented by that Synod to the rest of the Churches in Christendome signifying the sentence of deposition pronounced against Samosatenus and requiring them to joyn with it If it be madnesse to think them so mad as to summon the rest of the Churches upon an obligation which they did not acknowledge what shall it be to think that this obligation was but imaginary or at least voluntarily contracted not inacted by the will of our Lord declared by his Apostles The Emperor Aurelian being appealed by the Council to cause Samosatenus to be put our of his Bishops house by force who maintained himself in it by force against the sentence of the Synod decreed that possession should be given to him whom the Christian Bishops of Italy and Rome should acknowledge for Bishop by writing to him under that title Certainly this Heathen Emperor in referring the execution of the Synods decree to the consent of those remarkable parts of the Church whereupon the consent of the rest might reasonably be presumed understood the constitution of the Church by his five senses better than those learned Christians of our time who argue seriously that this Paulus Samosatenus was not excommunicated by the Synod of Antiochia but by the Emperor Aurelian For this is the course by which all the acts of the whole Church ever came in force those parts of the Church which were not present at the doing of them concurring ex postfacto to inact them and the civil power to grant the execution of them by secular power Perhaps it will not be fit here to let passe that which Athanasius relates libro de sontentiâ Dionysii Alexandrini That this Dionysius writing against Sabellius gave occasion to the Bishops of Pentapolis who resorted to the Church of Alexandria as wee see by the VI Canon of Nicaea to suspect him of that which afterwards was the Heresie of Arius And that Dionysius of Rome being made acquainted by them with a mater of that consequence to the whole Church this Dionysius writ him an Apology on purpose to give satisfaction of his Faith wherein S. Athanasius hath great cause to triumph that the Heresie of Arius which arose afterwards is no lesse condemned than that of Sabellius presently on foot Grant wee that it was an office of Christian charity to tender this satisfaction where it was become so requisite The example of Samosatenus shows that their addresse tended to question if not to displace their Bishop by the authority of the rest of the Church ingaging the consent of his own had hee been discovered to harbor the contrary Heresie to that of Sabellius And indeed what was the rise of all those contentions about Arius that succeeded in the Church after the Council of Nicaea but this question whether Arius should be re-admitted one of the Presbyters of the Church at Alexandria or remaine excommunicate And those truly that do not believe there is any Church but a Congregation that assembles together for the service of God must needs think all Christendome stark mad for so many years together as they labored by so many Synods to attain an agreement through the Church in this and in the cause of Athanasius that depended upon it But those who believe the power of the Church to eschere to the State when it declares it selfe Christian must think the Emperors Constantius and Valens mad when they put themselves to that trouble and charâ—e of so many Synods to obtain that consent of the Church which in point of right their own power might have commanded without all that ado In the decrees of divers of those many Synods that were held about this businesse you shall finde that those Churches which the said decrees are sent to are charged not to write to the Bishops whom they depoâ—e That is to say Not to give them the stile of Bishops not to deal with them about any thing concerning the Church but to hold them as cut off from the Church Just as the Emperor Aurelian afore commanded possession to be delivered to him whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should write to as Bishop This little circumstance expresses the means by which the communion of the Church was maintained To wit by continual intercourse of leters and messengers from Churches to Churches whereby the one understood the proceedings of the other and being satisfied of the reason of them gave force and execution to them within their own Bodies And this course being visibly derived from the practice of the Apostles sufficeth to evidence the Unity of the Church established by the exercise of that communication which maintained it When wee see the Apostles from the Churches upon which they were for the time resident dare Leters to other Churches signifying the Communion of those Churches one with another by the communion of all with the Apostles who taught and brought into force the termes and conditions upon which they were to communicate one with another have wee not the pattern of that intercourse and communion between several Churches by which common sense showeth all them that look into the records of the Church that the Unity and Communion of the whole was continued to after ages The words of Tertullian de praescript haeret cap. XX. must not be omitted here Itaque tot ac tantae Ecclesiae una est illa ab Apostolis prima ex qua omnes Sic omnes prima Apostolicae duâ— unà omnes probant veritatem Dum est illis communicatio pacis appellatio fraternitatis contesseratio hospitalitatis Quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejusdem Sacramenti una traditio Therefore so many and so great Churches are all that one primitive Church from the Apostles out of which all come So all are the primitive and Apostolical while all agree in proving the truth While they have the communication of peace the title of brotherhood the common mark of hospitality Which rights nothing but the same tradition of the same mystery ruleth It is to be known that among the Greeks and Romans if a man had made acquaintance and friendship in a forrain City the fashion was to leave a mark for a pledge of it with one another which was called tessexa upon recognisance whereof hee that should come to the place where the other dwelt was not onely to be intertained by him whereupon these friends are called hospites signifying both hosts and guests but also assiisted in any businesse which hee might have in that place Such a kinde of right as this Tertullian saith there was between Christians and Christians between Churches and Churches Hee that produced the cognisance of the Church from whence hee came found not onely accesse to the communion of the Church to which hee came but assistance in his necessities and business in the name of a Christian
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
pardon and absolution and the blessing of the Church was given them who could not be induced to restore the Church goods seized by Hen. the eighth A thing excluding all pretence foâ— any presumption of true conversion in them whom it concerned and yet â—ound necessary for the restoring of the Body in unity But so that the said necessity made it to be evidently for the general good even upon these terms For maintaining those who could not be induced to do right in the point in the unity of the Church there was no reason why the Church should be thought to warrant that absolution as to God which it granteth as to the Church Because it appears that it is granted to avoid a greater mischief Leaving them who finde themselves concerned by the ministery of the Church the communion whereof they regain to be reduced to that course which may assure their absolution as to God But I use this instance onely ad hominem that my reason may be understood not intending to justifie the proceeding in point of right as I do undertake to justifie the Council of Nicaea in admitting the Meletians who were guilty of the crime of Schism not onely without satisfaction of their repentance but all in their ranks onely suspending the exercise of their offices till those that were presently possessed should depart Or as I might undertake to justifie Pope Melchiades in offering to do the like for the Denatists for which he is commended by S. Austine Epist XLVII which the Church supposing Schism to be a mortall sinne that is of that number which the now Church of Rome injoyns Penance could not do upon other terms then I have said and if it had thought no sinne reconcileable without the Church could by no means have done The same is to be said of those that are excommunicated and cast out of the Church without cause For as no man ever doubted that to be a case which comes to pass so can no Christianity allow that a man should be excluded the Kingdom of God for another mans fault He therefore that hath the knowledge in Christianity and the resolution for it to keep himself to the duty of a Christian in such a case though being destitute of all advantage by the communion of the Church it is difficult to do he I say shall obtain pardon of sinne without help of the Church and not by desiring the Ministery thereof otherwise then as not desiring of communion with the Church remains a barre to the work of Gods grace In fine consider the primititive order of the Church and that of the Church of Rome at this day by the law of secret confession once a year For he that considers how much businesse the reconciling of a Penitent made the Church in those days will never imagine that it could be presumed that all sins which now come under secret confession should then be expiated by the Keys of the Church I have given you the testimony of Origen directing to make choice of some of the Presbyters of the Church to make acquainted with secret sinne that if he should require Penance to be done in the face of the Congregation his prescription might be followed This inforces us to understand the other part of the alternative that if he required no such thing it should be enough to take that course of humiliation and mortification which he should prescribe in private And truly one of the Canons of the Council at Elvira XXXII orders Penance to be injoyned by a Priest not by the Bishop Which I understand to be in private and not in publick Allowing it very probable that this is not properly counted Penance but onely suspension from the Eucharist injoyned by some of those Canons in some case XXI L. LXXVII and is opposed to Penance Can. XIV So that probably one of the Presbyters might injoyn it in secret by these Canons But otherwise seeing that all this while there was no Penance but by order of the Bishop or as in some of S. Cyprians Epistles of the Bishop and Presbyters sometimes when the case was difficult as in Firmilianus quoted afore by order of a Synod what appearance is there in common reason that all sinnes that now come under secret confession could then come under the Keyes of the Church In the order which Nectarius abolished any man may discern there was nothing but a course of abridging publick businesse of the Church by referring Penitents to one Priest set aside to that purpose When that course was abrogated still they had recourse to the Bishop and Presbyters but it is manifest so many could not be dispatched as afore And now it is manfest that to require of every man to confesse all the sinnes that ever he did since he confessed last would be an unsufferable torture to mens consciences And therefore it is onely required that they confess those which they have in remembrance I ask then how those which they have not in remembrance come pardoned If by inward repentance restoring the disposition of a Christian it is that which I seek If by being willing to confesse them if I had them in remembrance he that is not qualified for remission of sinnes as Christianity requireth is not qualified becauâ—e he would have been so qualified had it not been his own fault I adde further that it is at this day resolved by Casuists of very good note that a Penitent is bound in conscience to impose upon himself further Penance then that which his Confessor injoyneth in case he be satisfied in conscience that he hath not imposed that which is sufficient For in the case of clave errante it is manifest that there is no remission by the Keyes and yet remission is to be had by the Gospel antecedent to the Church If then a mans own Christianity may supply that means of forgivenesse which the Keys of the Church fail of procuring it is manifest that the use of them is not absolutely necessary for every particular Christian though absolutely necessary for the whole Body of the Church Add hereunto the restimonies of Ecclesiasticall Writers by which it appears that as they maintained the discipline of Penance which I also would maintain so farre as truth will allow so they supposed remission of sins attainâ—ble without it The exhortations of Tertullian and S. Ambrose to Ecclesiastcal Penance will no way inferr that it was then actually a Law in force that all sins that void the grace of Baptism should be made known to the Church for the obtaining of pardon by the Keyes of it For how ill doth iâ— become any Law to begge obedience by alledging reasons which must inforce it if they be good were there no Law But on the other side what express testimonies what necessary consequences there are to inferr that there was no such Law in the primitive Church I remit the Reader to the Collections of the Aâ—â—hbishop of Spalato 5. VII 10-20 and
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
Churches of all one Soveraignty constitute the Nationall Church containing all the Provinces thereof so would they have also Provincial Synodical and Classical Churches consisting of the Congregations Classes and Synods which each respective Classis Synod or Province containeth The other mean opinion is the frame of the Catholick Church I as have showed and shall show it to have been in force from the time of the Apostles Having first showed that the visible unity of the Church is a thing commanded by God in the first place for the communion of all Christians in the true faith and in the service of God according to the same For it is visible that the means by which this hath been attained is the dividing of Christendom into Churches which we now call Dioceses providing each of them a sufficient number of Priests and Deacons under one Head the Bishop as well to regulate the faith and maners of the people as to Minister unto them the offices of Gods service Therefore whatsoever means I imployed at the beginning to show that those persons who succeeded the Apostles in time obtained not their places by force or fraud but by their will and appointment will here be effectual to prove that the qualities which they held in their severall Churches were not obtained by force or fraud but by the same appointment Wherefore having showed that from the beginning the unity of the Church hath been mainâ—ained by the mutuall intelligence and correspondence of the chief Churches upon whom the less depended And that this intelligence and correspondence was alwaies addressed and managed by the heads of the said Churches nor could it indeed have been maintained had there not been such Heads alwaies ready to address and manage the same I have in effect showed that this was the course whereby the Apostles executed their design of maintaining unity in the Church Is it not plain by the instances produced in the first Book that the whole Church remained satisfied of the saith of each Christian upon the testimony of his Bishops because they rested satisfied of his That hereupon whosoever was recommended by his Bishop was admitted to communion as well abroad as at home What other interess had the Church of Rome in the faith of Paulus Samosatenus or Dionysius Alexandrinus the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia in the proceedinge of Novatianus all Churches in the fortune of Athanasius What other reaâ—on can any man give for that uniform difformity of Ecclesiasticall Traditions and customes which â—ppeareth from point to point in all maters the whole Church agreeing in things of highest concernment but all Churches differing in maters of lesse consequence Is it not manifest whensoever inâ—stead of this daily correspondence Synods were assembled upon more pressing occasions that onely Bâ—shops appeared in behalf of their respective Churches For if others appeaâ—ed in the name of Bishops upon occasion of old age or other hinderances I need not say that it was the Bishops right in which another appeared Into these qualities and preheminences over the rest whether of the Clergy or People that Bishops should be able to inâ—â—nuate themselves all over Christendom had it not been so appointed by the Apostles it is no lesse contradictory to common sense then that Christianity should ever have been received had not such men as our Lord Christ and his Apostles preached and done such things as the Scriptures relate to make it receivable Or then that all Christians should of their own inclinations agree to those Laws which have made the Church one Society from the beginning had they not found themselves tied to follow the appointment of the Apostles that founded it Wherefore I will not take upon me to show you the names of Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs in the Scriptures Much lesse any command there recorded that all Churches be governed by Bishops all higher Churches by higher Bishops But I pretend to have showed by the particulars produced in the Right of the Church Chap. III. in the Primitive Government of Churches throughout and in the Apostolical form of Divine Service Chap. IV. and never contradicted to my knowledge that there are express marks left us in the Scriptures of severall Churches planted in several Cities so that there is never mention of more Churches then one in one City but perpetually of more then one in one Province of Heads of those Churches whether Apostles themselves or their fellows and successors applyed to the charge of several Churches Of chief Churches and inferiour Churches according to the capacity of the Cities in which they were first planted I challenge further here as proved by that which hath been said in the first Book That this form of Government hath been in sorce ever since the time of the Apostles whose immediate successors are to be named in the greatest Seas upon which it is evident that inferiour Churches depended from the same time As manifest by that which hath been said in the places afore-named That the advice and assistance of Presbyters together with the ministery and attendance of Deacons to and upon the said Heads is as anciently evident in the Records of the Church as any Record of any Church is ancient And upon these premises I conclude That the same course and way of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which afterwards prevailed throughout the whole Church was first begun by the Apostles as without whose authority it could not have taken effect all over the Church And of those that take upon them to depart from the Church that they may not be so governed I take my self inabled to demand where there is any precept recorded in Scripture that the Government of the whole Church be setled either in Independant Congregations or in Congregationâ—l Classical Synodical Provincial and National Churches The very names are as barbarous to the language of the Scriptures â—s the subject is to the Writers of it And yet were all this showed me I would say that as the Magicians of Pharoah in the third Miracle so must the Architects of this design fail in the highest point of aecumenical or Catholick Which having never been compassed but by the means of single heads of the chief Churches it is absolutely too late for any other form to pretend I say not to come from any command of the Apostles but to be receivable in the Church being founded by God for one and the same body to continue till the coming of Christ to judgement For if the Apostles of our Lord determining in part that Order which should preserve the unity of the Church which what it was the original practice of the whole Church evidenceth leave the rest to be determined by the Church for its own necessity and use That which is so determined by the Châ—rch whensoever it becomes necessary to maintain unity in the Church shall no lesse oblige then that which the Apostles determined in specie themselves The reason is the unity
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
Congregations I do indeed acknowledge that there is difficulty in expounding those texts of the Apostles which speak to this purpose so as to agree them with the Originall and universal practice of the Church And therefore it is no marvail if learned men that have handled this point among us where without affectation I may say that it hath been most curiously and ingenuously disputed have gone several wayes upon severall grounds in assigning the reason why the degree of Deacons is mentioned next to the degree of Bishops in so many texts of the Apostles having the order of Priests between both as the original and perpetual custome of the Church required For it is well enough known that there is an opinion published and maintained by many learned observations in the primitive antiquity of the Church that during the time when those texts of the Apostles were written there were but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons established in the Church though Bishops also are called Presbyters the name not being yet appropriated to the midle order while it was not introduced as afterwards it came to be And this opinion allegeth Epiphanius very fitly confuting Aerius the Heretick or Schismatick objecting the same that at the beginning the multitude of believers in less places being so small that one Governour together with some Ministers to attend upon him in executing his Orders might well serve them it is no marvail if there be no mention of any more Orders in so many texts of the Apostles And it may be said that as there were Churches founded and governed by a certain order from the beginning that we read of them in the Apostles so no Bishop Priest or Deacon was appropriated to any particular Church till after that time by degrees they came to be selled to certain Churches by Ecclesiastical Law and Custome So that during the time of the Apostles themselves and their companions whom they associated to themselves for their assistance were in common the Governours of Churches then founded according as they fell out to be present in these Churches to whom they had the most relation by planting and watering the faith planted in them either by virtue of the agreement taken by the Apostles within themselves or by the appointment of some of them if we speak of their companions and assistances But afterwards when the faith came to be setled then as those which had been Governours of Churches in common before became chief Governours of particular Churches to whom by lawful consent they became appropriated so were they provided of Priests and Deacons to assist and attend them in the execution of their office towards the body of Christians then mulplyed in severall Churches I do confess to have declared an opinion something differing from both of these sayings about the reason here demanded As not being perswaded either that the Order of Presbyters was not yet introduced into the Church during the Apostles time or that chief Governours were not appropriated and setled in some Churches during the same though I have no need to undertake that in all they were believing and maintaining that the Apostles themselves in the Churches of their own planting and watering were acknowledged chief Governours in ordering notwithstanding their extraordinary both Power not confined to any one Church and graces and abilities porportionable In which regard and under which limitation visible to the common sense of all men of their own and the next ages I do maintain Bishops to be their successors Whereupon it follows that I allow the name of Bishops in the Apostles writings to comprehend Priests also because of the mater of their function common to both though with a chief Power in the Bishop in Priests so limited as to do nothing that is to say nothing of consequence to his Power over the whole Church without his consent and allowance But this variety of opinion in expounding these Scriptures draweth after it no further consequence to prejudice the primitive Law of Goverment in the Church then this That there are more waies then one to answer the seeming probabilities pretending to make the evidence of Catholick Tradition unreconcileable with the truth of the Scriptures in the agreement whereof the demonstration of this truth consisteth I conceive therefore I might very well referre my self to the Readers free judgement to compare the reasons which I have produced with those that since have been used Notwithstanding I shall not think much briefly according to the model of this design to express the sense I have of the most native meaning of the most texts alleged in this businesse that I may have opportunity to point out again the peremptory exceptions which â—re visible in them either to the imagination of mungrill Prâ—sbyteries compounded of Clergy and People during the time of the Apostles or of the chief Power of any such Presbyteries in their resepective Churches 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 Flders FIrst then as the name of Apostle in the Originall meaning is very general to signifie any commissary Proxy delegate or Ambassador so the use of it in the Apostles writings is larger then to be confined to the twelve For when S. Paul saith That our Lord appeared to the twelve afterwards to all the Apostles 1 Cor. XV. 5. 7. He must needs understand other Apostles besides the twelve perhaps the same that he meant where he reckoned Andronicus and Junias remarkable among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. And that in another â—ense then Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles Act. XIV 4. 14. For the name of Apostle intimating whose Apostle he is that is called an Apostle we have no reason to count Paul and Barnabas any mans Apostles but our Lord Christs though they were first sent with the blessing of such Doctors and Prophets as the Church of Antiochia then had Acts XIII 1. 2 3. whose authority cannot in any reason be thought to extend so farre as to constitute an Apostle parâ—llel to the Twelve which S. Paul so oft so expresly challenges For since we see their commission is immediately from the Holy Ghost that is from God we are not to value their right by the solemnity which it is visibly conferred upon them with Unlesse you will say that by virtue of that Imposition of Hands they were messengers and Commissaries of that Church and that they then appeared to be no more then so though afterwards God set on them marks of the same authority with the Twelve Truly those whom S. Paul calls false Apostles transferring themselves into the Apostles of Christ 1 Cor. XI 13. must neâ—ds be understood to have pretended commission from our Lord Christ himself For hereupon they stood upon it that they had
Samaria mentioned Acts IX 31. where the Harvest was lesse though somewhat elder yet not more considerable whither as Elders of the whole Church that is Bishops or as Elders of the Church of Jerusalem that is Priests supposing the same Order promiscuously called Bishops and Presbyters which I never doubted and since hath been largely and learnedly proved will scarce be decided by these Texts and the interesse of the Church will be secure though it be not decided For when the deputation of the Church of Antiochia is addressed to the Apostles and these Elders when they assemble to consider of it when the answer containing the decree goes forth in their name Act. XV. 2 4. 16 23. It is still the decree of the Princes and Elders of the Israel of God whether you take them for Elders of the Church of Jerusalem or Bishops of the whole Church Nor is the case much otherwise when Paul and his companions consult with Iames and the Elders almost about the same businesse Act. XXI 18. though of the twelve it seems there was none then left at Jerusalem but James whom for the many marks which the Scriptures give us that his care was appropriated though his power no way confined to that Church the Church calleth Bishop of Jerusalem and of those Presbyters many were either setled in or dispersed to other functions as those whom first we read of in the Church of Antiochia must have have been of that quality Act. XIII 1. no lesse then Barâ—abas and Silas Act. IX 27. XI 22-26 XV. 22. But is there any man that can pick out of all this any maner of pretense for the equality of whether Governors or Ministers of the Church for the concurrence of Lay Elders to the Acts of their Government For the concurrence of the people there may be some pretense because they are present at passing the decree and the leter that bears it goes in their name Act. XV. 4. 23. And because the choice of Matthias and of the seven proceeds upon upon their allowance and nomination of the persons Act. I. 20-23 XVI 3-6 But that therefore the cheif interess should be in the people is an imagination too brutish Cannot the Apostles finding themselves obliged to ordain persons so and so qualified for such and such offices in the Church appeal to the people whom they acknowledge so and so qualified Cannot S. Paul afterwards provide That no man should blame them in dispensing the Power which they are trusted with 2 Cor. VIII 20. but a consequence must thereupon be inferred against themselves that they are commanded by God to referre things concerning the salvation of Gods people in generall as the power of an Apostle the order of Deacon the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem to the temerity and giddinesse of the people When it is evident in the Text that the people are neither left to themselves whither to proceed or not nor to proceed but within bounds limited so that proceeding within those bounds â—hey could not prejudice the Apostles interess without they were to be restrained As for the mater of Faith determined at Jerusalem is any man so litle a Christian as to doubt whether it obliged them whom it concerned or whether by virtue of that act Those that so readily admitted it Act. XVI 4. did not The whole interess of the people consequent to this proceeding of the Apostles consists in being reasonably satisfied of mater of fact concerning persons and causes to be justiced by the Apostles and their successors in the Church And can no more argue the People to be chief in the Church then the triall by Juries can argue England to be no Monarchy Which interesse when it is shamefully abused to the dishonour of Christianity I say not I would have it taken away as in some â—laces perhaps it is but I say he that would not have the satisfaction which they may demand limited by certain bounds with force of Law that it may not be so abused any more can neither pretend to be reasonable nor Christian But that the people of one Church should do an act which must oblige other Churches is a thing so gross that they who allow their Christians the freedom to be tied to nothing but what themselves please do by consequence allowing others the same destroy all principles and grounds of one Catholick Church which having proved as largely as my design admits I remit those who may pretend themselves unsatisfieâ— in this point to void me these grounds before they claim of me that which cannot stand with the truth of them But the due interess of the people being thus satisfied and their pretended interess by the same means excluded what becomes of the Lay Elders interess upon their account For Lay Elders can be no more then the Foremen of the People to act that interess which they challenge to their due advantage And in this quality I have granted elsewere and cannot repent me of that opinion that in some parts of the Western Church some of the chief of the People that is that were not of the Clergy did concur to the acts of the Church in behalf of the People and of their Interess And in this quality Blondel the most learned of Presbyterians claims the Lay Elders of Gâ—nâ—va to be receivable Which as he knew very well and all his party will own to be utterly inconsistent with the meaning and intent of them who first brought them in at Geneva So will it both cut of all pretense for them that is derived from any other ground and leave the claim also to be limited by that which the preservation of the whole Church and the unity thereof will require In the mean time the Order of Bishops and the superiority thereof above the order of Priests stands exemplified in the person of S. Iames the brother of our Lord by so ancient testimonies concurring with such circumstances of Scripture marked out Bishop of Jerusalem whither one of the twelve or noâ— In that indeed the reports of the ancients are not reconcileable But if not why should S. Paul be so careful to protest that he received not his authority from him no more then from S. Peter and S. Iohn Gal. I. 18. 19. II. 9. 12. Could there be any question of receiving his authority from any but those of the Twelve Therefore and for other reasons elsewhere alleged I count it as shouldred by most probâ—bilities so a subject to least difficulty to believe him to be Iames the Son of Alphoeus as having nothing of consequence to answer but why Hegâ—sippus writing so soon after the Apostles hath not remembred it But of that let each man think as he finds most reasonable Those testimonies of antiquity which expound those circumstances of Scripture which mark him out for the head of that Church do not discharge him from the care of other Churches especially of the circumcision which perhaps by his care together with
S. Peter and Iohn were wonne to Christianity according to the division which S. Paul hath recorded unto us Gal. II. 9. 10. whereupon we see him exercise the the office of an Apostle to the Churches of the Jews dispersions by his Epistle Iames I. 1. But let us proceed S. Paul and Barnabas ordained their Presbyters Church by Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XIV 23. And appointed Titus to constitute Presbyters in Creete City by City Tit. I. 5. Be it granted because Epiphanius hath said it and it is a thing in it self reasonable that in some places the number of believers was so small that there needed but a Bishop to govern and a Deacon or Deacons to attend upon the execution of his orders That there should be Churches constituted by the name of such Churches in such Provinces and no more people any where signified would make them Churches that might be not that were Tertullians saying Ubi tres Ecclesia licet laici Where there be three though of the Laity there is a Church is not meant of such Churches But that three Christians or two in our Saviours terms Mat. XVIII 19. that meet to serve God are a Church because so assembled being of the Church At least in mother Churches of mother Cities where the Apostles made their chiefe residence because the harvest was there greatest and likewise their Ministers that there should be no more Christians then one Bishop could govern and teach during the Apostles time seems to me to cary no appearance of truth And to imagine that those who were designed for Pastors of Churches in being were alwaies resident in the mother Church though occasions whereof there is no rule might and must cause their presence there many times the reason of their office admits not But if we admit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie more then one in a City and a Church it seems not to be refutable that they were appropriate to those Churches The name of Presbyters of such and such Churches bâ—ing relative to the people of their respective Churches Further S. Paul sâ—nding to Ephesus called to him the Elders of the Church whom by and by he saith The Holy Ghost had placed Bishops over his flock to feed the Church of God Act. XX. 17. 28. Here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by virtue of the article may referre us either to the whole Church or to that part of the Church which the speech most concerned or in fine to the very Church of Ephesus There is a conjecture that S. Paul makes them Bishops by saying that God had made them Bishops of his Church who were Presbyters when he sent for them But I allow not those of the Church of Rome that our Lord made the Bread and Wiâ—e of his last Supper his Body and Blood by saying This is my Body this is my Blood But by that which he did before he said it For the same reason therefore I cannot allow that S. Paul here makes them Bishops of Presbyters by saying God hath made you Bishops in his Church not declaring by any thing that he sayes or does any intent so to do thereby to be understood But I cannot but consider that Irâ—naeus III. 14. tells us that S. Paul at this time called together the Bishops and Presbyters Qui erant ab Epheso reliquis proximis civitatibus Which were of Ephesus and other the next Citâ—â—s and S. Jerome ad Evagr. that he called together omnes illos apud quâ—s praedicaverat All those wiâ—h whom he had preached Which if we grant the article of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will referrs us to that part of the Church that was concerned whereas the words as they lie as he sent to Ephesus and called the Elders of the Church referre us to the Church there mentioned of Ephesus When S. Paul addresses his Episâ—le to the Philippians together with the Bishops and Deacons Phil. I. 2. when in his instructions to Timothy he passes immediately from Bishops to Deacons 1 Tim. III. 1-8 It is said that the Bishops of the next Cities together with their Deacons were present or ordinarily resident on the Capital City according to that which I said even now of Ephesus And it may be said that they were Bishops and Deacons at large in respect to the Church at large not applyed to the functions either of Bishop or Priests in this or that Church And truly I do remember the words of Clemens ad Corinth speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Preaching therefore the Word by Cities and by Countries and Baptizing they made the first-fruits of them whom they had baptized Bishops and Deacons of those that should believe And that S. Paul addresses his Epistles to the Church that is at Corinth and to all that called on the name of the Lord in all Achaia 2 Cor. I. 1. So that they provided for the ordering of them that should become or were become Christians before they were yet cast into Churches And it is reasonable to think that those were ordained in the mother Cities and there stood upon their guard expecting opportunity of framing their flocks And that this was a cause why the titles of Bishops and Presbyters are promiscuously used and attributed But I cannot therefore yield that one Bishop with one or more Deacons could serve the Churches of Philippi Corinth or Ephesus Or that as yet no Governours were affected and applied to several Churches For when S. Paul directs Timothy to dispose of the stock of the Church for the Honour that is the maintenance of widows and Presbyters to receive accusations against Presbyters under two or three witnesses and to rebuke them that should offend before all 1 Tim. V. 2. 16-28 it seems not reasonable to imagine Timothy the Judge of the Biships of inferiour Churches as regularly every Bishop is of his own Presbyters that he should rebuke the Bishop of Forâ—iâ—e though inferiour Churches before the people of his Church of Ephesus that he should dispose of the stock of his Church at Ephesus upon Widows or Presbyters of other Churches then that at Ephesus But rather that the proceeding of Timothy is prescribed as a â—orm for the proceeding of others in their respective Churches Another opinion saith That the Deacons whom S. Paul puts next to Bishops are Presbyters called also Ministers of God and Christ as Timothy 1 Thes III. 2. S. Paul himself 2 Cor. II. 23. Ministers of the New Testament as S. Paul 2 Cor. III. 6. Ministers of the Gospel as S. Paul Ephe. III. 7. Ministers of Righteousness into whom the Ministers of Satan are transformed 2 Cor. XI 15. Ministers of the Church as S. Paul Col. I. 25. Observing that the vulgar Latine of S. Jerome translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. Diaconos elsewhere in thirty places Ministros and concluding that these Deacons are the same with Presbyters under the Apostles and the Bishops their
next successors till the order of Deacons was brought in by the Church Which to me seems strange that the titles of the Apostles and their companions should constitute or signifie an inferiour order of Presbyters And therefore think it more pertinent to the meaning of those texts to observe the terms which are added in them to limit that Ministery for which they are called Ministers either by the persons or subject mater to which it relates For the Apostles commission being immediate from our Lord as the commission of their companions when they became their Apostles from themselves and the mater in which the Apostles ministred to God or Christ their companions also to them being the Word or the Gospel that is the work of publishing it distinguishes them from the Deacons that are under Bishops in S. Paul as those that ministred to their respective Bishops and by their appointment to the people as the VII at Jerusalem by the appointment of the Apostles For if S. Paul be called Minister of the Church Col. I. 15. he is so called as Minister of the whole Church or Minister of God in the work of it not of this or that Church which Deacons are called Deacons because they minister to but at the Order of their Bishops and Presbyters As for the companions of the Apostles when they are sent upon their commissions to preach the Gospel they are fitly called Ministers of the word the Gospel the New Testament or Evangelists when they give personall attendance upon them the Apostles they may fitly be understood to be called their Ministers in the same sense as Deacons are called Deacons for attending upon their Bishops allowing alwaies as much difference between them and ordinary Deacons as between S. Paul for example and the Bishop or Priest on whom the Deacon attends And for these two several notions you have just ground in the texts of the Apostles Acts I. 17. 25. VI. 1. 4. XIX 22. 2 Tim. IV. 5. 6 7 11. Besides when Phaebe is alled a Deaconnesse of the Church at Câ—nchrâ—ae Rom. XVI 1. when S. Paul sayes that they who Minister well procure themselves a good step and much freedom in the faith which is in Christ Jesus 1 Tim. III. 13. I understand not what this opinion would make of Deaconnesses or what is that faire step which Deacons attain by ministring well which in my opinion is clearly the rank of Presbyters as Clemens Alexand. and others of the Fathers have expounded it Neither do I think it possible to give a more reasonable reason why the vulgar translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministros so often elsewhere should translate it Diacones Phil. I. 1. 1 Tim. III. 8. then to put a difference between that sense in which it stands for the Deacons of Churches which the Greek word Diaconus had been used to signifie all over the Latin Church and that signification in which the Apostles and their companions are called the Ministers of Christ or of the Gospel In which because the Greek Diaconi was not famous in the Latine therefore he imployeth tke Latine Ministri that answers it Plainly seeing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beareth a notion of waiting upon anothers pleasure in executing his orders and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of ruling and governing and seeing I have showed that the Presbyters according to the ancient custome of the Church derived originally from the Synagogue did sit with their Bishop though in a rank under him while the Deacons hood as waiting upon them as you may see in the Apostolicall form of divine service Chap. III. IV. and in the Right of the Church Chap. III. I cannot see how both these names can be accepted to signifie the same persons Or how the degree which S Paul saith is attained by well performing the Deacons office can be any thing but the rank of Presbyters There remains the words of the Apostles 1 Thes V. 12. 13. Now we request you brethren to know those that labour amongst you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you And to esteeme them more then abundantly in love for their works sake And again Heb. XIII 7. 17. Remember your Leaders which have spoken to you the word the issue of whose conversation seeing imitate ye their faith And Be ruled by your Leaders and yield to them for they watch for your souls as those that must give account That they may do it joyfully and not groaning For that is not for your turn Where it is manifest he distinguisheth those that first planted the Churches to whom he writes from those that governed them at present But whether it be more reasonable to understand by these words one governour to one Church or a Bench of Presbyters to each whether assigned to one particular Church or belonging to any Church as much as to these I shall willingly referre it to the Reader to Judge The words of S. Jame I conceive admit no denyal Jam. V. 14. Is any man among you sick let him call for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord here are Elders more then one and those proper and relative to one and the same Church and the office which they do not competible to any Lay Elders according to any pretense supposing especially that which I said afore to clear the intent of it In fine the seven stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks which are the seven Churches Revel I. 20. seem to yield us a pregnant evidence of so many Governours proper to so many Churches To wit so many Bishops as is argued elsewhere As for the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 28. And some hath God set in the Church first Apostles secondly Prophets thirdly Doctors then miracles then Graces of healing helps Governments kinds of Languages And Ephe. IV. 11. And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Doctors It is true the offices of Apostles and Evangelists cannot be confined to one particular Church but the offices of Pastors and Doctors may and ought of Helps and Governments must At least if we understand them as I have showed that they are to be understood to wit Governours of the sick impotent and needy and their assistants in that work For I may freely say there hath nothing been said to the purpose of those Offices but this And therefore seeing the Apostle in both places speaks of the whole Church which consisteth of all Churches the form whereof is still the same how much soever they differ in bignesse it seemeth to me very reasonable to understand by S. Paul that God hath placed in the Church as well those offices which relate to all or to many Churches as those which relate unto one that by the means of all of them the University of Christians may be edified in and to the unity of one Body
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
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
apart for that use then in ordinary houses serving for other purposes And therefore though I believe that there is still mention in such records as the Church hath left of Assemblies held in ordinary houses that is to say that there is many times mention of the Assemblies of Christians in the lives of the Saints and the Acts of Martyrs in private Houses and not in Churches yet of the Titles and Coemiteries of the Church of Rome I do not believe the like For this word Title necessarily importeth a Marke set upon a place set aside for Church goods to Church uses it being then a visible custome in the world â—or those things that became the Exchequers by some title of Right to have markes set upon them challenging them upon that Title and this being the reason of the name Neither is it necessary that this Marke should be a Cross without as the Cardinall Baroniâ—s imagines which might discover them to Persecutors seeing the Marke might be visible though onely to Christians witnessing the consecrating of the place to that distinct use There is no cause then to discredit that which we have immediately from Anastasius because he had the best and the ancientest Records of the Church for his materials That Pope Evaristus so near our Lord divided the Titles that is the Churches then extant among his Presbyters For whereas Corneliâ—s in his leter to Fabiâ—s Bishop of Antiochia in Eusebius which I speak of elsewhere tells him that the Church of Rome had then six and forty Priests Optatus in his second Book affirms that the Christians had in Rome when the Donatists first came thither Quadraginta Basilicas quod excurrit Forty fair Churches and upwards For those houses which Christians having consecrated to the use of the Church a room was reserved in for divine service were afterwards turned into better buildings meerly for the service of God and not for the retyring of Christians in time of persecutions Eusebius Eccles Hist VIII 2. shows us that afore the persecution of Diocletiane the Christians in all Cities had raised new buildings from the very foundations because the old received not their assemblies So neer then comes the number of Churches at the Donaâ—â—sts coming to Rome to the number of Priests in Cornelius his time So neer comes this agreement to justifie the distribution of Titles under Evaristus As for the burying places of Christians which their saith must need require them so keep distinct from the sepulchers of them who had it not whether within or without their Cities who can deny that it was a great opportunity for the celebrating of their Assemblies Especially the remains of them near Rome that are yet extant witnessing what means theere was both for their refuge there in the time of persecutioâ— and also for the solemnizing of the offices of Christanity as you may see by those things which Cardinal Baronius relateth I alledged afore the sentence of the Emperour Alexander Severus about a place questionable between the Christians and the Taverners being very confident that no reason will allow that this place could be otherwise adjudged to the Christians then as belonging to the Church of the place I know we have many places alleged out of Origen Arnobius Lactantius and others that defend Christianity against the Gentiles to show that Christians then had no Temples But the effect of them lies in the word Templum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying stately Fabricks built for the magnifying of the professed Religion by those that built them which the Christians could not then do when their religion was not allowed In the mean time places for the opportunity of assembling themselves which Arnobius and Ammianus call conventicula they can no more then be supposed to have wanted then to have been no Christians And that before Constantine they had those Fabricks which might bear the same of Templa or Basilicae because for the bulk and beauty of them answerable to the Temples of the Heathen Gods or the great mens Palaces among the Romans some whereof perhaps were by that time dedicated to be Churches The same Lactantius may be my witnesse where he mentioneth such a one at Nicomedia Ego cum in Bithynia or atorias liter as accitus docerem contigissetque ut eodem tempore dei Templum everteretur I saith he being sent for â—into Bithynia and teaching eloquence when it fell out that the Temple of God was pulled down This was one of those fair buildings which Eusebius spoke of set up before the persecution of Diocleâ—iane and pulled down by it And besides the place quoted afore Optatius lib. I. where speaking of the Bishops that made the best of the Donatists after the persecution of Diocletiane he saith that they met in Council at Carthage in domo Urbanii Carosii giving for a reason nondum enim erant Basilicae restitutae because the Palaces were not restored to the Church therefore they met in a private house And truly it were a thing so barbarous Cycloâ—ical so becoming those Monsters of whom the Poet says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that none of them hearkens to another in any thing to imagine that it is not necessary to have certain known places for Christians to meet at for the service of God that I will not suppose that the question is about that point amongst us whatsoever noise may have been made in this confusion amongst us But rather that the difference is about having stately Fabricks for magnifying of the Religion which we profess about the maner of building them according to the importance of those offices for which they are built about the consecrating of them and the holinesse to be ascribed to them about using the same buildings which have once either truly or imaginarily been polluted with Idolatry All which being considerations not proper to this place I shall content my selfe to have said this to the point proper to this place I go forwards to consider the Order or the mater and form of the publick service of God which I cannot do without setting aside one scruple which was never heard of in Gods Church till our time and in our time hath been caried on so hot that it hath been one of the chief pretenses of dissolving the unity of be Church in England which hath opened the Gap to all the Divisions which we are over-runne with It is pretended that God is not to be served with soâ—â—es of Prayer prescribed by the Church but with that which his Spirit inciteâ— to those who have the Grace of the Spirit whither appointed by the Church to the Ministery of Gods service in publick which are those only those as I have showed that are designed to bear a share in the Government of the Church or not What the Presbyterians have abated hereof by their Directory I will not be troubled to inquire Every man may remember that so long as the businesse was to dissolve the unity of
God knowes us as we are Nay he saith there that Moses beheld 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Greek seems to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying that glorious appearance witnessing the presence of God which Moses communed with mouth to mouth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by sight for we have no better English for S. Pauls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. V. 7. not by riddles Whereby it appeareth the knowledge of God which blessed soules have is described by S. Paul in the very same termes in which the knowledg of God which Moses had is described by God And yet none of those School Doctors believes that Moses saw God as the blessed shall doe Therefore both of them seeme to be such an expression of intellectuall and spirituall things borrowed from bodily things of this world as this weakenesse of our nature is able to beare And therefore seeing God is represented to us throughout the whole scripture in the Majesty of a King sitting upon his Throne as the most glorious thing that all sorts of men to whom the scripture is written can imagine to themselves it seemeth most reasonable to conceive that both expâ—essions are borrowed from thence For the custome of the world knowes no more evident marke of preferment then for a man to see his King and to be alwaies admitted to his presence of which admission Courts know that there are many degrees As the VII Princes in Ester I. 16. which see the Kings face Or stand before the Kings face as the Queen of Sheba expresseth it in Solomons servants 2 Kings X. 8. As the souls of the Martyrs are before Gods throne and see him day and night Apoc. VII 15. And so by consequence those soules that are admitted into Gods presence have an other manner of knowledge and familiarity with God then ever Moses had because it is one thing to see God to speake with God mouth to mouth in his Tabernacle Where by a glorious appearance speaking in his person he testified his presence another thing in the third heavens whereof the most Holy Place of the Tabernacle was but a figure Here take notice before we goe further in what fashion the Majesty of God appeareth or is described in the scriptures I saw the Lord sitting on his Throne and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left saith the prophet 1 Kings XX. 19. that is all the Angels attending on both sides of his Throne God is to be trembled at in the great council of his Saints and terrible above all that are about him Saith David Psa LXXIX 8. The Majesty of his Throne is terrible even to the Angels that stand beneath and about it For the Saints of heaven in the old Testament are onely Angels Thus far none of them sits in Gods presence In that vision of his throne which appeareth Dan. VII 9. 10. with God sitting on it like the Ancient of daies with a thousand thowsands and a miryade of miryads waiting upon him it is said indeed Thrones were set But no mention of any but this one in all that followeth And though the people of God are called there v. 22 25 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saints of the Highest Yet the Angles are still the Saints of heaven His people the Saints on earth whom God there giveth sentence for against their enemies But to the prophet Ezekiel I. 22 26 27. he appearteth in the likenesse of a man sitting upon a Throne pitched on a floor which is drawne by foure living creatures signifying those Angels which covered the Arke of the Covenant in the Tabernacle upon which God is described to sit as upon his Throne in so many places of the old Testament Whereas in the vision of the Prophet Esay his Throne is compassed by six Esay VI. 1 2. in that of S. Iohn Apoc. IV. 2 3 5-8 with foure But in the new testament our Lord promises his twelve Apostles that at the regeneration that is the Resurrection they shall sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel Mat. XIX 28. Luke XXII 30. where by the way wee are also to note that the Kingdome of God which oure Lord bequeaths to them to eate and to drink in it and to sit on these thrones is not till the resurrection Therfore neither these joies which the said eating and drinking signifies Hereuppon it is that S. Paul saith Know you not that the Saints shal judge the world 1 Cor. VI. 2. When therfore God appeareth to S. Iohn as a bout to take vengeance upon the persecutors of his Church his throne appeareth invironed with XXIV Thrones for XXâ—V Elders to sit on and give sentence with him Apoc. VI. 4. the Angels attending upon their Thrones as upon his Apoc. V. 11. VII 11. and the soules of the Martyrs which Apoc. VI. â— appeare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beneath the Altar of incense which stands before the throne Apoc. VIII 3. appeare before the Throne Apoc. VII 9. Just as in the Church the people was wont to stand at the service of God with their faces towardes the Bishop sitting on his throne in the midst of the seates on which the Presbyters sate on both sides of him the Deacons standing to gâ—ve them attendance As I have shewed large in my booke of the service of the Church Chap. III. p. 53-62 Chap. IV. p. 71-76 besides the review p. 74 75. And further in my book of the Râ—ght of the Church p. 93-98 But all this while we must remember that though this vision appeares to S. Iohn in the heavens Apoc. IV. 1. yet doth it not appear that the Throne of God before which the soules of the Martyrs stand and round about which the XXIV Elders sit is seene by them as it is seene by S. Iohn in the vision here described For whereas it is plaine that all this is represented as if there wâ—re in Heaven such a Temple as that at Jerusalem in the inner court whereof the Elders sit the people stand praysing God For Apoc. VII 15. the Martyâ—s serve God before the Throne day and night in the Temple It is manifest that the Throne of God which in the Temple was the Arke of the Covenant shadowed with the Châ—rubâ—nes was not seene by those who worshipped without in the Court. And Apoc. IV 5. it is said that thunder and lightning came out of the Throne and that there were seven lamps burning before the Throne being the seven spirits of God So that the seven candelsticks being betweene the Holy of Holies and the Court in which these things appeare we are obliged to understand the Throne to be in the Holy of Holies as in the Temple and the VII lights in the outward Tabernacle or holy place of the Temple Which is still more plaine when it is said Apoc. XI 19. And the Temple of God in heaven was opened and the Arke of his Covenant was seene in
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
it is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
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
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
corrupted the truth As Paul also saith A man that is an Heretick after one reproof and a second avoid Knowing that such a one is perverted condemned by himself Where you see it is not I but Irenaeus that expoundeth those words of S. Paul to this purpose The same Irenaeus III. 4. Cerdon autem qui ante Marcionem hic sub Hygino qui fuit octavus Episcopus saepe in Ecclesiam veniens exomologesim faciens sic consummavit Modò quidem latenter docens modò verò exomologesim faciens modò verò ab aliquibus traductus in his quae docebat malè abstentus est religiosorum hominum conventu But this same Cerdon also that was before Marcion under Hyginus who was the eight Bishop many times addressing to the Church and confessing ended accordingly Sometimes covertly teaching his Heresie sometimes confessing And sometimes being detected by some in those bad things which hee taught was excluded the assembly of the Religious Tertullian de praescript cap. XXX informes us that Marcion though hee was at the first refused Penance by the Church of Rome as I shall show you out of Epiphanius yet afterwards was cast out of the Church there which supposeth him admitted afore with Valentinus the Father of another Heresie and having been received once again at the last for good and all For having obtained to be re-admitted upon this condition that hee should reduce with himself all that hee had seduced at length hee died before hee was able to accomplish the same These things coming to passe so soon after the Apostles as they did and the same course being held in separating those Heresies from the Church which sprung up in their several ages afterwards there is no room left for any pretense that the Church never had power to do that which there never was any time that shee did not do For it is to be noted that these Heads of Heresies being condemned and cast out of the Church in which they first appeared and which they attempted to divide were thenceforth disowned by all Churches being certified of the proceeding that had passed against them upon the place And therefore Vincentius Lerinensis Commentario I. expounding S. Pauls words Gal. I. 8 9. Let him be Anathema Anathema sit inquit id est separatui exclusus nè unius ovis dirum contagium innoxium gregem Christi venenatâ permistione contaminet That is saith hee let him be separated set aside shut out least the direfull contagion of one sheep with any mixture of poison stain the innocent flock of Christ And again afterwards handling the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. VI. 20. Keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane novelties of words What is it to avoid With such one not so much as to eat What is avoid If any come to you saith hee and bringeth not this doctrine receive him not home nor bid him God speed Where you see these are none of my collections gathered out of the Apostles words but that exposition of them which the practice of the Catholick Church inferreth 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 Novations 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 THis is indeed the true demonstration and evidence from the effect that the will of God and not the consent of men is the ground upon which the Corporation of the Church subsisteth The whole number of Christians dispersed over all the Empire and beyond the bounds of it continued for divers hundred years in one communion and in the unity of one Church Those that indeavoured to alter the Rule of Faith or to impose such Lawes as were found by the greatest part not to stand with the end for which the Church was founded being by the consent of the whole excluded the communion of it for Hereticks and Schismaticks Hee that sayes this was not the work of God or the means of effecting it none of his declared will why should not hee say the like of Christianity Indeed since the Council of Ephesus the Churches of Mesopotamia and Assyria are fallen from the Unity of the whole since the Council of Chalcedon those of Aegypt and Aethiopia Since that the Eastern Churches under the Patriarch of Constantinople have been divided from the Western under the Pope of Rome And these from one another into so many parties since the Reformation that wee are now come to dispute whether they ought to be united or not That ever they will be is so hopelesse that no man would undertake to dispute that they should be were it possible to preserve that little of Christianity that remaines without re-uniting the Church I allege here the most eminent passages that fell out in the Church from the Apostles to Constantine to show that it is a question whether the evidence be more That by Gods appointment there was from the beginning and ought to be alwaies one Catholick Church Or the hope lesse that ever it will be so again I cannot begin with a better evidence than that of Irenaeus because it containes the effect of the aforesaid ordinances of the Apostles for the separating of the Heresies set on foot by Simon Magus and Cerinthus from the Communion of the Church that the Unity thereof might be preserved by remaining distinct from them Wee understand by reading his first book that Basilides at Alexandria Saturninus at Antiochia Valentinus first in Aegypt then in Cyprus afterwards at Rome Cerintbus in Asia and elsewhere others in several parts of the World indeavored to adulterate that Christianity which the Apostles had delivered That they were so unanimously rejected and excluded out of the society of the Church from East to West that hee is able to affirm I. 3. that though dispersed all over the world yet it preserves the doctrine once preached as if it dwelt all in one house believing the same faith as if it had the same soul and heart and preaching and teaching the same as if it had but one mouth And can common sense imagine that the remotest parts of the world could remaine united to one another separated from Heresies sprung in the remotest parts of it which they could not have intelligence of but by communication of it with those parts of it where they sprung without that continual correspondence wherein the actual communion of the Church consisteth But the words of Irenaeus are so vigorous that I cannot leave them out here as they stand in his original Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Unity therefore of the Church was visible Otherwise it had been senslesse for Irenaeus to assume it as an evidence of the truth of that Faith the unity whereof became visible by the
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
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
of the Apostles through all the world offereth to him that feedeth us the First-fruits of his owne gifts in the New Testament So the precept of Oblations goes along with the precept of celebrating the Eucharist as provided for the maintenance of it Againe IV. 34. Et propter hoc illi quidem decimas suorum habebant consecratas qui autem perceperunt libertatem omnia quae sunt ipsorum ad dominicos decernunt usus hilariter liberè dantes ea non quae sunt minora utpote majorum spem habentes Viduâ illâ pauperculâ hîc totum victum suum mittente in Gazophylacium Dei And therefore that there might be a difference between the Oblations of slaves and of those that are free they the Jewes had the Tithes of their goods consecrated by the Law But those who have received freedome do themselves order all their goods to the Lords use as those at Jerusalem did cheerfully and freely Not giving lesse as having greater hopes But that poore Widow throwing into the Treasury of God her whole living Againe Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate Ecclesia offert justè munus ejus purum sacrificium deputatum est Quemadmodum Paulus Philippensibus ait Repletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito quae à vobis missa sunt odorem suavitatis hostiam acceptabilem placent em Deo Oportet enim nos oblationem facere in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo in sententiâ purâ fide sine hypocrisi in spe firmâ in diâ—ectione ferventi primitias earum quae sunt eis creaturarum offerentes Therefore because the Church offereth with simplicity justly is her Oblations counted a pure Sacrifice As Paul saith to the Philippians I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which you sent a sweet smell an acceptable sacrifice pleasing to God For it behooveth us making oblations to be found in all things thankfull to God that framed us Offering with pure mindes and faith unfained with firm hope and servent love the First-fruits of those creatures which wee have You see hee qualifieth that which they sent S. Paul no otherwise than the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated But chargeth the duty peremptorily upon all Christians which evidently presupposeth that it was in force through the whole Church for hee declareth that they did do that which hee moveth them cheerfully and freely to do Making the freedome of Christians the reason why the Gospel declareth not what is Gods as the Law did and so tying them to more Tertullian in the place afore-quoted de praescript Cap. XXX saith that Marcion the Heretick when hee was admitted into the Church out of which hee was excluded afterwards brought in with him ducenta Sestertia And adversus Marc. IV. 4. Adeò antiquius est quod est secundùm nos â—t ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit Quum pecuniam in primo calore fidei Catholicae Ecclesiae contulit projectam mox cum ipso posteaquam à nostrâ veritate descivit So is that Gospel of S. Luke which wee use the more ancient that Marcion himself sometimes believed it When in the first heat of the Catholick faith hee contributed also money to the Church which was straight cast out with him when hee fell off to his own Heresie from our truth How could the money that Marcion had brought into the Church with be cast out with him afterwards but because hee offered it to the treasury of the Church and because being there it was with himself disowned by the Church Which never would admit any offering from any body that was not admitted to communion with the Church For how many ancient Canons of the Church are there in which it is forbidden to receive the Oblations of such and such to signifie that they are not admitted to communion with the Church The Testimonies of Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian I leave them that please to peruse in the History of Tithes Chap. IV. contenting my self by these few to demonstrate upon what ground and with what intent and conscience Christians from the beginning tendred their Oblations at the celebrating of the Eucharist But it will as easily appear that the Church was owner of goods and possessions which Christians did contribute to the maintenance thereof even when it was subject to be persecuted untill persecution was proclaimed For then it cannot be doubted that the Church goods were seized into the Emperors coffers And what evidence more any man can demand for the Corporation of the Church which Idolaters acknowledged as long as they tolerated Christianity I understand not But there can be nothing so eminent as the charge laid to S. Athanasius in the Council of Tyrus and ever after wheresoever his case was questioned that going to visit after the Council of Nicaea and to put the acts of it in execution in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was a Shire of Aegypt next to Alexandria alwaies part of the Diocesse and coming with a guard to the Cell of one Ischyras pretending to be a Priest among the Meletians whom the Council had commanded to be subject to Athanasius and the rest of the Catholick Bishops upon such terms as I have remembred elsewhere and his Cell a Church it fell out that there was a glasse broken which they pretended to be a Chalice For it can no wayes be imagined that this case should trouble the whole Church as it did so long as it remained questionable whether Athanasius was regularly removed or not had not all the Church presupposed that Churches and Altars and Chalices consecrated to God are the Churches goods and that the irreverence which might be showed them might charge upon one of Athanasius his rank a presumption of so much irreverence to Christianity as should render him unworthy of it Therefore Athanasius in his Apology never allegeth any thing to the contrary but many things to evidence that there was neither Church nor Altar nor Chalice there The order of the Emperor Aurelian given for the execution of the sentence of the Christian Synod at Antiochia against Paulus Samosatenus is expresse and peremptory to the purpose How can the Soveraigne acknowledg the House of the Church which is in our Language the Bishops Palace at Antiochia but hee must be understood to acknowledge that which the Christians had disposed of to the Church to be done by virtue of their Law which hee for that time conniving at Christianity alloweth to be the Churches The good Emperor Constantine the Great in restoring to the Church the goods and possessions which had been ravished from it in the persecution under Diocletian and should then be found in being as you may see by Eusebius de Vitâ Constantini II. 36-40 Eccles Hist X. 5. intendeth not hereby to erect the Church into a Corporation by a secular capacity of possessing lands or goods without interruption of Law but professing to restore that which was the Churches
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
during that time For when it appeared that the Apostles discerned the secrets of mens hearts and inflicted death on those that proceeded hypocritically in their Christianity it is no mervail that none of the rest durst joyne themselves to them as S. Lâ—ke informes us Acts V. 13. that is of those that were not perswaded sincerely to imbrace and untertake Christianity And Excommunication is onely for those who appear not to be sincerely Christians denying it either by expresse profession or by consequence of their actions inconsistent with it Simon Magus may well be reckoned the first Who being sentenced by S. Peter to have nor part nor lot in this Word that is in any thing which Christianity pretendeth to give because it appeared that hee had professed it out of hope to learn how to do such strange feats as might advance the credit and ends of his Magick is by him exhorted indeed to repentance but so that the Apostle engages not himself that is the Church to pray for him as not satisfied yet of the truth of his repentance and conversion to Christianity Acts VIII 18-24 Which is the very practice of the primitive Church as I have showed more at large in the Right of the Church pag. 17-27 towards Apostates Murtherers and Adulterers whom many times and in divers parts they restored not to the Communion of the Church As counting it very difficult for them that had failed so grosly to give competent assurance of sincere Christianity though exhorting them to repentance and giving them hope of forgivenesse from the goodnesse of God when they found not reason to ingage the Church by restoring them to become the warrant of it In consequence to this passage of S. Peter with Simon Magus and in consideration of those Texts of the New Testament which I have handled afore though I acknowledg a Power of excommunicating in the Church yet I do not imagine that any man could be absolutely excommunicated further than this severity of Discipline was in force which refused Penance to some of the most grievous sinnes For whosoever was or might be by the custome in force re-admitted upon Penance is rather excommunicate by his own act if hee refuse it than by any act of the Church that requires it But in as much as whosoever is refused communion till hee perform his Penance is absolutely refused not performing it there is never a Penitential Canon in the records of the Church never a passage mentioning Penance in any of those that writ before the Canons of the Church were in writing that deposes not for a Power of excommunicating in the Church As for those whose sinnes were allowed no hope to be re-admitted though they were absolutely shut out of the Church yet in as much as they were sent to God with hope of mercy they were saved if saved by that Key which by authority as well as knowledge let them into heaven by shutting them out of the Church But suppose this case may be understood otherwise for the possibility of the thing those that were subject to be excommunicated by the Synagogue are not therefore disabled to excommunicate one of themselvs any more than those who now depart from the Church of Rome are disabled to excommunicate one of their own though wee suppose them to passe for Jewes to the Romanes their Masters and to injoy thereby the exercise of their Christianity For so long as their Interest obliged not the Romanes to distinguish between carnal and spiritual Jewes it is no mervail if allowing the Jewes to governe themselves in the Land of Promise they allowed them also to persecute those whom they took for Apostates though their own subjects But when the persecution upon the death of Steven ceased whether by the conversion of Paul or by the death of Herod or whatsoever might move the Jewes to surcease not the Romanes to forbid it no mervail if the Romanes maintained that liberty which the Jewes tolerated that is persecuted not in those whom they held Apostates For if the Romanes themselves in after times did not alwaies persecute Christianity when they allowed it not is it any thing strange that the Jewes who held their own Religion from the meer grant of the Romanes should finde cause not to persecute their Apostates as they counted the Christians with that Power which they were allowed by the Romanes This being the case of the first Christians in Palestine it will be easie thereby to take measure how it must stand with them in the dispersions of the Jewes to whom they were to bring the Gospel in the first place For suppose it intertained with that repute among them which might preserve it from being persecuted the fore-said reason would oblige the Christians to communicate with the Jewes as well in the service of God in the Synagogue as in civil converse Though obliged moreover as they should be able to assemble themselves for the service of God as Christians So the Christians of Antiochia whom Paul and Barnabas assembled in the Church for a year together Acts XI 26. were not to forbear to serve God with the Jews in the Synagogue so long as they and Christianity could hold so much credit with them as to give hope of reducing them to it So when the same Paul and Barnabas created Presbyters for the Churches which they had founded Acts XIV 23. sure they intended them not for the Synagogue which was provided without them But to maintaine the communion of those Churches in the service of God as Christians As for the Romanes their Soveraignes by whose grant the Jewes injoyed all that use of their Lawes which they injoyed no man will mervail that they took no notice of the difference between Jewes and Christians so long as the Jewes complained not when wee see them refuse to make themselves executioners of their wrath upon the Christians when they did complain Wee must not forget Gallio Acts XVIII 12-17 when Paul was brought afore him taking the difference to be onely about names and terms of their own Law and refusing to be judge in it though leaving them to persecute the Christians as by their own Customs namely by scourging they might do Nor mervail that hee at that time should think no more of it when wee finde by Origen that Celsus the Epicurean writing against the Christians two hundred years after takes it for a suit about goats wooll which is nothing As for the Edict of Claudius that all Jewes should depart from Rome Acts XVIII 2. the case is plain that Aquila and Priscilla and all native Jewes though Christians were involved in it and bound to withdraw But whether or no it layed hold on those that had been converted to Christianity being Gentiles and had not the legal mark of Jewes which was Circumcision upon them by the text of S. Luke appears not No though wee suppose that which I have showed in the Primitive Government of Churches p. 53-57 to be
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
the second of the LXX whose privildges are not to be communicated to any authority to be preserved in the Church afterwards But the importance of these exhortations is not such as can inferre any imagination of infallibility in those whom they are exhorted to follow For they that know the bounds of that Power which the Apostles had trusted with the Governours of particular Churches presupposing the Christianity and Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which themselves had delivered may safely be exhorted to acknowledge them to esteem them above measure in love to obey them and to give way to them remembring those from whom they had first received Christianity from whom they had received these instructions as well as their then Rulers because they had long before received and yielded obedience to those things which we except from the obedience of present Rulers as presupposed to any power they can challenge As for the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 15. I confess they containe a very just and full attribute of the Church and a Title serving to justifie all the right I challenge for it For if the Church be the House of the living God then is it by Gods founding and appointment a Body consisting of all members of the true Church wherein God dwells as of old in the Temple at Jerusalem as he dwells in every Christian as he dwelt in the Tabernacle and Campe of the Israelites And if it be the Pillar that sustains the truth then must it have wherewith to maintain it beside the truth it selfe which is the Scriptures And what what can that be but the testimony of it selfe as a body and fellowship of men onely which securing it selfe that is succession by the evidence made to the Predecessors of the same body maintains the truth once committed to the trust of it not onely by writing but also by practice But what is this to the gift of Infallibility for suppose the Church by the foundation of it inabled to maintain both the truth and the sufficience of the motives of faith against Infidels and also the rule of faith against Hereticks by the evidence which it maketh that they are received What is this to the creating of faith by decreeing that which before it was decreed was not the object of faith but upon such decree obligeth all faithful to believe Surely the Church cannot be the Pillar that sustains any faith but that which is laid upon it as received from the beginning not that which it layeth upon the foundation of faith Here I will desire the Reader to peruse these words of S. Basil Epist LXII speaking of the Bishop of Neo caesarea deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is a man gone that of all men of his time most evidently excelled in all and every of those good things that belong to men The stay of his Country the ornament of the Church the Pillar that sustained the truth For if a particular Prelate may duly be qualified as well the Pillar that supporteth the truth as the prop of his Country Well may the Church be thought capable of the same stile though it create no matter of faith by decreeing but onely preserve that which it hath received by defending and maintaining it CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the Sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the terms which they use The limitation of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith IT is now time having showed the meaning of those Scriptures which are alleged for both extremes which I avoid to do the like for some of those sayings of the Fathers which are pleaded to the same purpose This abridgment cannot consider all Therefore I will not multiply those which speak to one and the same purpose Nor marshal them according to the mater which they speak to Finding them speak to any branch of those extremes which I decline I will put them down as they come S. Augustine again de Doctr. Christianâ II. 6. for one place you had afore Magnifice salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ità Scripturas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus fastidia detergeret Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur Gallantly as well as wholesomly hath the Holy Ghost so tempered the Scriptures as to satisfie hunger by those places that are plain by those that are obscure to wipe of queasiness For there is scarce any thing digged out of those dark places that is not found most manifestly said elsewhere Epist III. Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum ut in eis quotidie proficerem si eas solas ab ineunte pueritiâ usque ad decrepitam senectutem maximo otio summo studio meliore ingenio conarer addiscere Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tant â in eis perveniatur difficultate Sed cùm ibi quisque fidem tenuerit sine quâ rectè pieque non vivitur tam multa tamque multis mysteriorum umbraculis opaca intelligenda proficientibus restant So great is the depth of the Writings of Christianity that I should profit in them continually if I should indeavor to learn them onely at very great leasure with most earnest study having a better wit from the beginning of my nonage till decrepit old age Not as if it were so hard to attain to that which is necessary in them But when a man hath attained the Faith without which there is no good and godly living there remain so many things to be understood and so darkly shadowed with manifold mysteries Clemens Protreptico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear yee then that are farre off hear yee that are near hand The word is not hid from any It is a common light it shineth upon all men There are no Cimmerians in the Word As some said then that there were in the world that had no Sun Irenaeus II. 46. Vniversae Scripturae Propheticae Apostolicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt All the Scriptures both of the Prophets and Apostles are open and without ambiguity and may be heard or understood alike of all III. 15. Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta firma nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito alia verò in manifesto docent um The doctrine of the Apostles is clear and firm and conceals nothing As not teaching one thing in secret and another openly Origen contra Celsum VII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vnlgar after their entrance made may easily study to apprehend even the deeper notions that are hid in the Scriptures For it is manifest to any man that reads them that they may have much deeper sense than that which straight appears in them Which becomes
astray Jude 11. 2 Pet. II. 15. Is interpreted Apoc. II. 15. That then were in the Church of Pergamus those that held the doctrine of Balaam that taught Balak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel to eat of things offered to Idols and to commit whordome So hast thou saith he those that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes Which by and by is attributed to Jezabel the Prophetesse The second argument is that both S. Peter and S. Jude in the places alledged do manifestly shew that the doctrines which they writ against tended to reconcile the licentiousnesse of the flesh with the hope of the world to come which I have shewed was the pretense of the Gnosticks And makes it very probable that the same Hereticks found accesse to those Christianes to whom S. James writes and intimated to them hope of salvation through the bare profession of Christianity without those workes whereby it is fulfilled which is the occasion that he takes James II. 14. to lay down those termes of the justification of Sinners which I have declared in due place For consider the terms in which S. Peter writes Many shall follow their corruptions for whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed For what can this signifie but that which is witnessed by so many of the Fathers that the ill opinion which the Gentiles had of Christianity was unjustly occasioned by the vilainies of the Gnosticks who though holding in secret a faith utterly destructive to Christianity neverthelesse counterfeited themselves Christians to withdraw Christians to themselves Againe Those that go after the flesh through the pollution of concupiscence And Thinking it pleasure to revel it by day spots and staines making good chere in their deceitâ— when they feast with you having eyes full of adultery not to be quieted from sinning And they beguil with the lusts of the flesh those who had truly escaped those that live in error promising them liberty but being slaves to corruption themselves For by whom a man is subdued his slave he becoms 2 Pet. II. 2 10 13 14 18 19. And S. Jude These dreaming defile the flesh And the things which they know by nature as bruit beasts in them they corrupt themselves Comparing them to Sodom and Gomorrah who went a whoring in like manner as these following after strange flâ—sh Jude 7 8 10. Which he who compares with the vilainies of the Gnosticks related by Irenaeus Epiphanius and others either he hath lost his right senses or knowing by Iraeneus that all the Gnosticks sprang from Simon Magus and that Simon Magus pretended to shew how to attain the world to come by loosing the raines to all vilainy must needs allow that they are of this traine whom these Apostles writ against Nor is the testimony of Hegesippus related by Eusebius Eccles Hist III 32. to the contrary He saith indeed that the Church had continued a pure Virgine under the Apostles and their hearers he saith that it began to be defloured in the next age Not by the coming in of Anti-Christ as some imagine unlesse they will have Simon Magus to have beene Anti-Christ which though true is not for their turne but by the coming in of the Gnosticks For though it appeare by the writinges of the Apostles that they were very busy during their time in seducing Christians by counterfeiting themselves the like yet may it well stand good that the Church continued a Virgine by casting them out according to the precept of S. Jude which I spoke of afore But that aster the death of them and their hearers they prevailed so farre that they might be said to have defloured the maidenhead of Christianity for the number of Christians whom they had seduced Besides it is easy to take notice that the relation of Hegesippus concernes particularly the Church of Jerusalem as following upon the martyrdome of Simeon and the confession of our Lord Christ to Domitian made by his kindred according to the flesh For so Eusebius expresly affirmeth And truly having related afore the Heresies of Simon Magus and Menander of Ebion of the Nazarites and of Cerinthus he must have given himself thely had he intended to say out of Hegesippus that the Gnosticks began under Adriane though being the time when Saturninus Basitides Valent ne and probably others set up for themselves But I will wish the enemies of this light which the knowledge of good learning that will surely be revenged of them who neglect it tenders to the obscure passages of the Apostles no worse punishment then to be bound to expound them without it For make use of it and all is plain and smooth before you unlesse it be a small circumstance that they tremble not to blaspheme glories 1 Pet. II. 10. Or as S. Jude 8. that they despise dominion and blaspheme glories Whereas if you put it out you will necessarily reason of the Apostles discourse as blind men do of colours And in truth there are two severall passages of Hegesippus related by Euseb the former whereof I have quoted assigning this deflouring of the Church to the time of Simeons martyrdome But the other though related by Eusebius IV. 22. at the time of Hegesippus assignes it unto his beginning immediately insuing upon the martyrdome of S. James and the choice of Simeon for Bishop of Jerusalem and that by a very expresse mark of the author thereof one Thebulis so R. Stevens copy reads it not Tâ—ebuthis that missed the Bishoprick there and upon that attempted to deflour the Church which they called then a Virgine saith Hegesippus expresly there Now it is manifest that the martyrdome of James was before the warre which the Romanes the same year that Festus left the Province as you have it in Eusebius II. 23. at which time it may be a question whither either the second Epistle of S. Peter or that of S. Jude were written at all or not Wherefore it is manifest that Hegesippus assigneth the deflouring of the Church to the time of Simeons martyrdome when none of the Apostles remained alive But so that Thebulis began to deflour it from the death of S. James and the beginning of Simeon That is the Church of Jerusalem because he was refused the Bishoprick of it But I must not forget Epiphanius his relation of Cerinthus that he was one of those that first contended with S. Peter about admitting Cornelius and his company to baptisme that afterward raised the contention about Circumcision in the Church of Antiochia which we see decided by the Apostles Acts XV. and that afterwards it was he or his disciples that troubled the Church of Corinth and the doctrine which S. Paul had taught it For the argument is undeniable that the things done under the Apostles have in them expresse markes of that which the succeeding Hereticks did and taught afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For those men stepping aside and becoming false Apostles
thus proceedeth Heb. IX 13 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkled sanctify the polluted to the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the everlasting spirit offered himself to God blamelesse cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God For though the Soul of Christ raised from the dead have immortality which is life indissoluable yet it hath not the virtue of it which is to be ascribed to the Spirit which raised him from the dead as vvell as us according to S. Paul Rom. VIII 10. 11. If Christ be in you though the body be dead because of sin yet the Spirit is life because of righteousness But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised Iesus from the dead shall quicken your mortall bodies also through his Spirit that dwelleth in you And whether the cleansing of sin can be ascribed to any gift bestowed upon the humane Soule of Christ as here they vvould have it ascribed to the immortality thereof let all the World judge I deny not indeed that Christ offers the Sacrifice of himself to the Father in the Heaven of Heavens as the Priest offered him the blood of those Sacrifices which were burnt without the Camp in that Holy of Holies But if I should deny that he offered himself to God vvhen he vvas crucified I might as vvell deny that the Priests offered therein Sacrifices to God when they killed them at the Altar and burnt them upon it So manifest so certain it is that the eternall Spirit by virtue whereof the blood of Christ being offered cleanseth sin was in Christ before his rising again And this is that which S. Paul saith 1 Tim. III. 16. And without crontroversie Great is the mystery of Godliness God was manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit preached to the Gentiles seen of Angels believed of the World taken up into Glory It is sayd indeed that the Syriack the Vulgar Latine the Arabick and the Commentaries under S. Ambrose his name all want 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and understand S. Paul to speak of the Gospel all the while And that the Gospel being sayd to be preached before it is sayd to be taken up into Glory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be no more then that it is exalted and glorified As if the order of the words did inforce that which is first sayd to have been first done or as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not signifie the taking of him up to God but the making of the Gospel famous Such violence will a prejudicate supposition offer even to Gods words rather then to quit an argument For to what sense can the Gospel be sayd to be manifested in the flesh because preached by the man Christ And suppose it may be sayd to be justified by the Spirit as Wisdome is justified by the Children of Wisdome Mat. XI 9. Luke VII 35. how much more proper is it to understand that God who appeared in the flesh should be sayd to be justified so to be in or by the Spirit the Works whereof shewed him so to be as afore Neither shall we need to make any greater doubt of the reading of those vvords of S. Paul Acts XX. 28. Look therefore to your selves and to the whole Flock ever which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God which he hath gotten with his blood Though the written Copy at S. James and the Syriack read here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because that the Church over which the Holy Ghost makes Bishops it bought with the blood of Christ is the same with that of the Apostle afore that the blood of Christ offered by the eternall Spirit cleanseth sin Neither is it so easie to avoyd the words of the Apostle Heb. XI 16. as some imagine For he took not Angels but the Seed of Abraham he took Suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to challenge which is done by laying hands on that which we challenge Is the ground therefore void upon which he challenges these to life as his own that through feare of death were in bondage does not the whole Epistle argue that this is done by the offering of our flesh saith he not expresly that it behoved him to become like his Brethren in all things and that he is not ashamed to call them Brethren because he that sanctifieth and those who are sanctified are all of one Heb. XI 11. 14. 17. does Christ vindicate mankind or the Seed of Abraham For though this is written to the Hebrews alone yet it was written at such time as all christians understood that it belongs no less to the Gentiles Wherfore it is manifest that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might seem to signifie Christs challenging mankind or vindicating them into freedome from death as well here as elswhere is restrained by the Text and consequence of the Apostles discourse to signifie the assuming of mans nature by the means whereof he won mankind into freedome and maintains it in the same In fine when the Apostle sayth 1 Pet. I. 11. That the ancient Prophets did search against what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them did declare and profess the sufferings to come upon Christ and the glories following the same He sheweth plainly that the same Spirit by which they spake by fits dwelt in the flesh of Christ for ever having once assumed it Of which Spirit the Evangelist sayth Marke XI 8. That Jesus knew by the Spirit how the Pharises reasoned of him within themselves For as I sayd afore that when it is sayd in the Old Testament that the word of God came to this or that Prophet an Angel appeared unto him speaking in the person of God vvho vvas therefore vvorshiped as God because the Word of God for vvhich being incarnate our Lord Jesus is for ever to be Worshiped as God vvas in that Angel at the present for that Service So I must further note here that upon such Word of God coming to a Prophet he became inspired that is possessed and acted by the Spirit of God for the time of that Service vvhich God by such a message imployed him about Not that all Prophets did receive such Word by such message from God before they spake those things which we believe still they spake by the Spirit of God For there is a great deal of appearance in the Scripture for that which the Jewes doctors deliver unto us Abarbanel by name alleging Maimoni for his saying upon Numb XI that there are inferior degrees of Prophesie which comes not by apparitions in which a man saw one that spake to him in Gods Name but sometimes meerly by inspiration of Gods Spirit inwardly moving either to act or to speak as
that the godly of the Old Testament were reconciled to God by the meanes of his Word and Spirit howsoever they understood that which is signified by these Titles I know the Arians made their advantage of that which Justine and others had said That God imployed his Sonne to man because he was himself invisible To say thereupon that the Father onely is invisible and incomprehensible even by the Sonne And that S. Austine thereupon counts it rashnesse to say that all the intercourse between God and man was ministred by the Sonne the Father and the holy Ghost not appearing at all in any of these Revelations That Dionysius acknowledgeth that all of them Athanasius that some of them were done by the Ministery of Angels The testomonies whereof you may find collected there And truly that God the Father was not revealed by these apparitions were a thing utterly unreasonable to imagine That Gods Angels did attend upon his Sonne in those messages wherein some one of them caries the proper Name of God is a thing which the Scriptures alledged afore will necessarily require But that whereâ—oever God deales with man by the Ministry of an Angel to whom the proper name and honour of God is attributed there the Sonne of God came to do Gods Word to man for a preface to his coming in the flesh And that whosoever received this word from God was withall possessed by his Spirit as I see it is very agreeable to the Scripture so I find no reason valuable why I should repent me to have said it I know that Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria hath been alledged for an authority that interrupteth the Tradition of the Church in the matter of the Trinity And I acknowledge S. Basils judgement comparing him with one who dressing plants and finding one that growes awry bends it so without measure that he sets it as much awry on the other side For writing against Sabellius and not content to settle the difference of the persons he saies that through heat of contention he let fall words that signified also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 difference of nature inferiority of Power and diversity of glory Epist XLI Whereof though I intend not to question any part I will say neverthelesse as I have alleged this passage of Dionysius in evidence for the unity of the Church so here that I desire no better evidence for the Rule of Faith which the same presupposeth Suppose for the present the sense of Dionysius to be questionable as it was to these Bishops of Pentapolis his Suffraganes who finding themselves offended at that which he had written gave information of it to Dionysius then Bishop of Rome and to his Synode which Athanasius de Synodis Arim. Seleuciae expresly nominateth Can there be a greater argument that the communion of the Church stood grounded upon the profession of that Faith which he seemed to transgresse then the concurrence of Rome and the Churches that resorted to Rome with those which resorted to Alexandria in that Faith which he seemed to transgresse Certainly the agreement of all Christians in admitting the Scriptures at this day is not able to produce the like And therefore granting the writings of Dionysius to have been an attempt upon the Faith the opposition that was so warmly made assures us that doctrine which the authority of a Bishop of Alexandria could not give passeport to was inconsistent with the Rule in force For the Satisfaction which he tendred in the Letter recorded by Athanasius shewes what the sense of the Church was for satisfaction whereof he was forced to write And therefore I may safely and do acknowledge some of his words to be more offensive then it can be fit for me to excuse Though his own leter alledges the similitudes of a plant and the shoot of it of a well and the stream flowing from it which the Church since Arius hath always used to make it understood Which may seem to render him reconcileable to the Faith of Nicaea by understanding the difference which he signifieth to consist not in the Godhead which may be understood to be the same in the fountain as in the stream but in the rank and manner of having it necessarily rendring that which proceedeth in that regard inferior to that from whence it proceedeth I know it is said againe that the Council of LXXX Bishops that condemned Samosatenus at Antiochia in their Epistle alledged there by Athanasius do say that the Sonne is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father And that it is said that the two parts of a contradiction may as well be reconciled as this with the Faith of Nicaea But with what judgement let S. Hilary speake Libro de Synodis Male intelligitur homousion Quid ad me bene intelligentem Male homousion Samosateâ—s confessus est Sed nunquid melius Ariani negarunt Octagiâ—ta Episcopi olim respuerunt Sed trecenti decâ—m octo nuper receperunt The homousion is wrong understood What is that to me that understand it right Samosatenus acknowledged it wrong Were the Arians more in the right in denying it Fourscore Bishops resused it long since Three hundred and eighteen have received it of late This had been enough to make a reasonable man suspect an equivocation in the businesse But Athanasius would have told him wherein it consisted and how and in what sense Samosatenus maintained it His argument was If our Lord Christ were not made God of man which first he had been made then must he be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same substance with the Father and so there shall be three substances one principall that of the Father two proceeding from him of the Son and holy Ghost And shall not all that imbrace the Creed of Nicaea disdaine Consubstantiality in this sense Which plainly makes the Father Sonne and holy Ghost of the same substance no otherwise then three men are said to be of one substance I know Gregory of Nâ—oâ—aesarea might have been further alledged out of S. Basil Epist LXIV Where he acknowledgeth him to have called the Father and the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this in a discourse written to Aelian a Pagan to convert him to Christianity and at the bottom consisting of nothing but equivocation of terms He allowing himself to term the Sonne the creature and make of the Father whom the Greek Fathers commonly call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the cause of the Sonne And to call them two in notion but one for hypostasis because he takes hypostasis for substance and notion for that Character which distinguisheth between persons which in the now terms of the Schoole are said to be known and discerned by their notions But I will go no further in Origens behalf or in behalf of any Scholar of Origens If he have left that which necessarily imports an ill sense whereof his Scholars Dionysius or
Certainly the word Do this is that which the whole action is grounded upon as pretending to execute it and therefore the effect of it so far as consecrating the Eucharist is already come to passe when the Church may say This is our Lords Body this is his bloud as our Lord said This is my body this is my bloud But the strength of this resolution I confesse lies in the consent of the Church and those circumstances visible in the practice thereof which to them that observe them with reason are manifest evidences of this sense I have observed in a Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church p. 347-370 the passâ—ges of divers of the most ancient Writers of the Church in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving thanks is put for consecrating the Eucharist Unto which adde the words of Irenaeus in Eusebius Eccles Hist V. 20. concerning the then Bishop of Rome Anicetus when Polycarpus was there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hee gave way to Polycarpus to celebrate the Eucharist For seeing that this Sacrament that is the Elements consecrated are called the Eucharist all over the Church from this thanks-giving the act thereof passing upon them to give them by way of Metonymie this name What can be more reasonable than to grant that it is this act and not the rehersal of the words of the Gospel which relate what our Lord did and said in instituting as well as celebrating it by which the consecâ—ation is performed Though on the oâ—her side I insist that these words have alwayes been rehearsed by the Church in consecrating the Eucharist and ought still to be frequented and among them those which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body This is my bloud which now the whole School thinks to be the onely operâ—tive words in that change which the making of the Elemâ—nts to become the Sacrament imports I have also showed in the same place that S. Paul when hee saith 1 Cor. XIV 16 17. For if thou blesse by the Spirit hee that fills the place of an Idâ—ot or private perâ—on how shall hee say the Amen upon this thanks-giving For hee knoweth not what thou sayest For thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified by blessing and giving thanks means the consecrating of the Eucharist which thoâ—e that hâ—d the grâ—ce of Languages among the Corinthians undertook then to do in unknown tongues and are therefore reproved by the Apostle Because it may appear by the constant practice of the whole Church that it ended with an Amen of the people which S. Paul therefore calls the Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit that was used in that case And also that when hee writeth to Timothy I exhort therefore first of all to make supplications prayers intercessions thanks-givings for all men For Kings and all that are in eminence that wee may lead a peaceable and quiet life in all piety and gravity hee intends to châ—rge that at the celebration of the Eucharist which here hee calleth Thanks-givings prayers be made as for all states of men so especially for publick Powers and Princes Because S. Augustine S. Ambrose and the Author de Vocatione Gentium I. 12. do expresly testifie unto us that the custome which the Church then and always afore and since hath had to do this came from this Ordinance of S. Paul and containeth the fulfilling of it And because it is manifest by all the forms of Liturgie in all Churches that are yet extant and by the mention made of the maner of it upon occasion in the writings of the Fathers that the Eucharist was never to be celebrated without prayer for all states of Christs Church And this indeed is a great part of the evidence which I pretend There are extant yet in several Languages several Liturgies that is forms of that complete Service of God by Psalmes and Lessons and Sermons and Prayers the Crown whereof was the Eucharist as that of S. Mark of S. James of S. Peter S. Basil S. Chrysostome which are the forms that were used in their Churches of Alexandria Jerusalem Rome Caesarea Constantinople though not as they had from the beginning appointed but as Prelates of authority and credit had thought fit to adde to or take froâ— or châ—nge that which they from the beginning had appointed There is besides the Canon of the Roman Masse that is the Canonical or Regular Prayâ—r which the Eucharist is consecrated with which is the same in Latine with that of S. Peter in Greek upon the mater as of a truth the Greek is but the Translation of the Latine it seems for the use of these Greeks in Italy that follow the Church of Rome and that of S. Ambrose at Milane three translated out of Arâ—biâ—k by the Mâ—ronites at Rome the Ethiopick translated â—into Latine many Canons called by them Anaphora in the Maronites Missal lately printed at Rome in the Syriack one of the Christians of S. Thomas in the East-Indies in Latine In all these you shall observe a Prayer to begin where the Deacon formerly saying Sursum corda Lift up your hearts the people answered Habemus ad Dominum Wee lift them up unto the Lord. The subject of it is at least where any length is allowed it to praise God for creating the world and maintaining Man-kind through his providence with the fruits of the earth Then after acknowledgement of Adams Fall for using first those means of reclaiming Man-kind unto God which wee find by the Scriptures that it pleased God to use under the Law of Nature first by the Patriarches then under the Law of Moses by the Prophets then sending our Lord Christ to redeem the world Upon which occasion rehearsing how hee instituted the Eucharist at his last Supper prayer is made that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may sanctifie them to become the body and bloud of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with his Grace This being so visible in so many of these Liturgies shall wee say that all that followes after the Deacons warning let us give thanks makes up that which the ancient Church after S. Paul by a peculiar term of art as it were calls the Eucharist or Thanksgiving Or that the Sacrament which taketh the name from it is consecrated onely by rehearsing those words which our Lord said when hee delivered it This is my body this is my bloud Especially all reason in the world inforcing that the presence of the body and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist being that which God promiseth upon the observation and performance of his institution and appointment cannot be ascribed to any thing else In the Latine Masse before the rehersal of the Institution they pray thus Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam ascriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris Vt nobis corpus sanguis
with virgines and once maried people And shall thy sacrifice freely ascend And among other affections of a good minde wilt thou desire chastity for thee and thy wife I dispute not here how lawfull it is to pray for the dead which Tertullian touches again de Monogamiâ X. de Animâ LVIII This Tertullian supposes that if a Christian have two wives hee must offer that the Eucharist may be celebrated and that at the celebrating of it the Priest may pray for those whom hee mentions as the occasion of celebrating it The birth-dayes of Martyrs that is the Anniversaries of their sufferings was another occasion of celebrating the Eucharist as in Tertullian so in S. Cyprian Epist XXXIV Sacrificium pro eis semper ut meminiâ—â—is offerimus quoties Martyrum passiones dies annuâ commemoratione celebâ—an us Wee alwaies offer sacrifice for them as you remember when wee celebrate the yearly commemoration of the Martyrs suffering dayes Therefore where the â—ame S. Cyprian forbids offering the names of those that had fallen away in persecution and offering for them Epist IX XI hee forbids the receiving of their offerings and by consequence praying for them at the Eucharist Epiphanius Haer. XXX speaking of the Patriarch of the Jewes baptized in private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The said Patriarâ—â—â—aâ—inâ—â—â— his hand a very considerable summ of gold streâ—ched out his hand and gave it to â—â—e Bishop saying Offer for mee S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Mystag V. Eâ—roe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then that spiritual sacrifice that unbloudy service being done consecrâ—tâ—â— over that propitiatory sacrifice wee beseech God for the common peace of the Churches for the State of the world for the Kings their armies and allies for the sick c. adding that praying for the departed wee offer to God Christ cruciâ—â—ed â—or our sins to render him propitious to them and to us Of which effect in due place the intent hereby appears For here as hee calls it a Sacrifice upon the Consecration so hee plainly sets down wherein the propitiation which it effecteth consists according to the Catholick Church For to say truth to the purpose in hand I can produce nothing like that which I have said already in my Book of the Service of God at the Assemblies of the Church to which I remit you for the rest pag. 370-382 that in all the Liturgies there is a place where mention is to be made of all States of the Church for whom the Oblations out of which the Eucharist is consecrated are offered And likewise a place where the Eucharist being consecrated prayer is made in behalf of all States in the Church that is to say the Sacrifice of Christ his Crosse there present is offered up to move God to grant them all that is desired by the regular and continual prayers of the Church And among them there is a special place for those that offer at present If any man be moved to imagine that any part hereof is prejudicial to that Reformation which the Church of England professeth for I professe from the beginning not to be sâ—rupulous of offending those that offend it I remit him to that learned Appendix of Dr Field to his third book of the Church the purpose whereof in answer to the question where the Reformed Church was before Luther is to show that in this point as in others there handled the sense of the whole Church of Christ even to the time of Luther and to the Council of Trent was no other than that which the Church of England embraceth and cherisheth Thereby to show that the Reformation thereof never pretended to found a new Church but to preserve that which was by taking away those corruptions which time and the enemies of Christianity had sown in the Lawes and customs of it Which hee doth so evidently perform in this point that I must needs challenge any man that hath a minde to blast any thing here said with the staâ—e calumny of Popery to consider first Whether hee can prove those things which the Authors past exception there quoted declare to be the sense of the Catholick Church at that time to contain any thing prejudicial to the Gospel of Christ and that purity thereof which the Reformation pretendeth And because I know hee cannot do it I rest secure of all blasphemies or slanders that can be forged upon this occasion Openly professing that those who will not acknowledg that condition of the Gospel and the promises thereof which I have demonstrated to be essential to Christianity it is for their interest to defame the sense of the Catholick Church with the slanderous aspersions of Popery that so they might seduce miserable creatures to believe that there is a faith which inâ—itles them to the promises of the Gospel not supposing them converted to the Christianity which it rendereth For seeing that propitiation which the Sacrifice of the Eucharist pretendeth is grounded upon this condition of the Covenant of Grace as I have showed it is no mervail if they who pretend to reconcile the promises of the Gospel to the lusts of the flesh by which this world is injoyed indeavor to slander the purity of Christianity with those aspersions which they have seduced wretched people to count odious In fine it is not that consideration of a Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Eucharist which the sense and practice of the Catholick Church inforceth but the violent interpretations of it which are made on both sides to both extremities that can give the leass pretense for division in the Church For while on the one side the sacrificing of Christ a new is so construed as if to doubt of the virtue of it in behalf of all that assist in it whether they communicate in it or not whether their devotions concurr to it or not were to doubt of the virtue of Christs Crosse it is no mervail if this create so great offense that the receiving of the Eucharist nay the assisting of it with the devotions of Christian people comes to be a mater of indifference On the other side while the renewing of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse by that representation thereof which the Eucharist tendreth for the redressing of the Covenant of Grace between God and those which receive is construed as prejudicial to that one Sacrifice whereby our Lord for ever hath perfected those whom hee sanctifieth no mervail if the very celebrating of it come to be a mater of indifference the effect whereof by believing that a man is predestinate or justified is had before and without it The mater of the Sacrifice then being so great a subject for the diviâ—ion upon so litle cause it is time for good Christians to awake and look about them and see that the lesse cause there is the greater good will the parties have to continue at distance In the mean time it is the common interest of Christianity even the means of their salvation by the
quà m ex institutionis disciplinâ Caeterùm inquit immundi nascerentur quasi designatos tamen sanctitati ac per hoc etiam saluti intelligi volens fidelium filios Ut hujus spei pignore matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinaretur Alioquin memin erat dominicae definitionis Nisi quis nascetur ex aquâ spiritu non ibit in regum dei id est â—oâ— erit sanctus Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseaâ—ur For hereupon the Apostle also saith that men are born holy of either sex sanctified as by prerogative of seed so by breeding and discipline Otherwise saith he they should be born unclean giving to understand that the children of Christians are as it were designed to holinesse and thereby to salvation that he might patronize those mariages which he thought fit to be maintained by the pledge of this hope Otherwise he remembred the determination of our Lord Unlesse a man be born of water and the spirit he shall not go into Gods Kingdom That is he shall not be holy So every soul is so long listed in Adam till it be listed again in Christ Which you see is not done but by Baptism according to Tertullian Therefore in the end of the next Chapter Proinde cùm ad fidem pervenit reformata per secundam nativitatem ex aquà supernâ virtute detracto corruptionis pristinae aulaeo totam lucem suam conspicit Therefore when it comes to the faith being reformed by a second birth of water and the power above and the curtain of former corruptions drawn she sees her whole light And de Bapt. cap. XVII shewing in what case a Lay-man might baptize Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus utaris sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personae conditio compellit Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur cùm urget circumstantia periclitantis Let it suffice thee to use it the right of baptizing in cases of necessity if at any time the condition of place or time or person constrain For then is the resolution of him that helpeth accepted when the case of him that runneth bazard presseth There is no such thing as any case of such necessity in the opinion of our Anabaptists therefore it is not Tertullians He shows that the Church alloweth a Lay-man to baptize because it believed that the children of Christians could not enter into the Kingdom of God otherwise The words of Gregory Nazianzene 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be all this saith he that delays Baptism in those that demand Baptism But what would you say of Infants that are neither sensible of the losse nor of the Grace Shall we baptize also these By all means if any danger should presâ— For it is better they should be sanctified insensible then depart unsealed and not persued And of this circumcision that is applied on the eighth day to those who cannot reason is a reason to us The daubing of the door-posts also preserving the first born by things unsensible For the rest I give mine opinion staying three years or something over or under that at which age they may hear and answer something of Religion though not perfitly but grosly understanding it then to sanctifie their souls and bodies with the great Sacrament that perfecteth us By and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is in all reason of more advantage to be fortified by the Laver for the suddain accidents of danger that incounter us not being capable of helpe He proceeds disputing against those that would not be baptized aâ—ore thirty because of our Lords example All this is so plain that I will adde nothing to point out the effect and consequence of his words Nor doth the VI Canon of Neo-caesarea signifie any more then this providing that women be baptized while they are with childe And that it be not thought that the baptism of the Mother concerns the child 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because every ones proper purpose upon profession is declared Nor Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXVI saying plainly that in the primititive times the Grace of Baptism was wont to be granted onely to them that were found in body and mind to understand what they expected and what they undertook by being baptized For though the solemn profession of Baptism be a powerfull means to make it effectuall yet what is that to the necessity of baptizing before death And that the custome here testified was not generall the Infant that received the Eucharist in S. Cyprian de Lapsis besides the opinion of Nazianzene which you had even now will witnesse Neither do the examples of S. Chrysostome who being bred under Meletius Bishop of Antiochia was not Baptized till one and twenty or of the same Nazianzene who having a Bishop to his Father was not baptized till he came to mans age prove any more than the then custome of the Church allows that it was by particular men thought fit to be deferred supposing that in case of necessity it were secured But a great many witnesses speak not so much as the Law the rule the custome of giving Baptism by any man that was a Christian in that case of necessity For out of that case of necessity the office of baptizing belonged to the very highest in the Church to wit to as might stand with the more weighty imployments of their office For otherwise a little common sense would serve to inform them that those offices which required more of their personal knowledge skill wisdome and goodnesse were to be preferred before the office of Baptizing which though it concerns salvation yet requires no such qualities Can any man then imagine any reason why all Christians are licensed or rather commanded to baptize in that case but the necessity of the office and that no Infant should go out of the world unbaptized And this chokes all the exception that is made from the custome of giving Infants the Eucharist in the ancient Church For as I have shewed before that it was not held necessary to salvation as Baptism was so here I must alledge that it cannot be said that the Eucharist was celebrated and that all Christians might celebrate the Eucharist in this case of necessity to the intent that Infants might not go out of the world either unbaptized or without the Eucharist As for Origen upon the Romans and S. Austin de Gen. X. 43 who affirmed the Baptism of Infants to come from the Tradition of the Apostles suppose we for the present that it is not Origen that speaks them but Ruffinus that translated him and that this is said IVC years after the birth of Christ CCC and more after the death of the Apostles was it not visible to them what came from the Apostles what from the determination or practice of the Church For that it should come from abuse he that would tell me must first perswade me that Antichrist was in being
guilty of those excesses which they are charged with by Epiphanius S. Jerome and others Of these particulars you may see in S. Augustine de Haeresibus and Sirmondus his Praedestinatus both of them Haeresi XXVI and LXXXVI But all the while the subject of this separation is the discipline of Penance received by the whole Church as from the Apostles the limitation of the practice thereof being the ground upon which the difference is stated And for the ground of this ground Whether it could then be pretended that the Keyes of the Church could do no more then cure the scandall of notorious sinne on the one side Or whether it could then be pretended on the other side that the Keyes of the Church import any Power to pardon sinne immediately not supposing that disposition which qualifieth for pardon visible to the Church and procured by those actions which the authority of the Church injoyneth All this I am content to referre to that common sense which is capable to understand these particulars I shall not need to say much of the Novatians at Rome and elsewhere the Donatists in Africk of the Meletians in Aegypt having said this of the Montanists all of them if we regard the subject of the separations which they made in severall parts of the Church being nothing else but branches of the same sect and forsaking the unity of the Church for their part of that cause which ingaged Montanus The Novatians because they would not indure that those who fell away from the Faith in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to the communion of the Church upon demonstration of repentance The Meletians for the same cause in Aegypt under the persecution of Diocletiane The Donatists upon some appertenâ—nce of the same cause Onely they serve to evidence the discipline of Penance to have been as universall as the Church of Christ when no part of it is found free from debates about the terms liâ—iting the exercise of it They serve also to evidence the ground and the pretenâ—e of the Power of the Keyes in the discipline of Penance by the same reason which I alledged afore After these times when the customes of the Church which from the beginning was governed by un-written Law delivered by word of mouth of the Apostles but limited more and more by the Governours of several Churches began to be both reduced into writing and also more expresly determined by the Canons of severall Councils greater and lesse it were too vain to prove that by dicourse which of it selfe is as evident as it is evident that there are such Rules extant which in their time had the force of Law to those parts of the Church for which they were respectively made Onely I do observe the agreement that is found between the originall practice of the Church in this point and that order which I have showed you out of the Apostles writings evidencing that interpretation which I have given of them by that rule which common sense inforces that the meaning and intent of every Law is to be measured by the primitive practice of it For we see so much doubt made whether those three great crimes of Idolatry Murther and Adultery were to be reconciled by Penance that is by the visible and outward demonstration of inward repentance to the Church not onely by Montanus but partly by Novatianns that that great Church of Antiochia remained doubtfull a great while whether Cornelius or Novatians should be acknowledged the true Bishop of Rome We see the Eliberitane Canons which were unquestionably made divers years before the Council at Nicaea and therefore may be counted as ancient as any that the Church hath exclude some branches of those sinnes from reconciliation with the Church We see this vigor abated by the succeeding discipline of the Church It is indeed said in the Church of Rome at this time that the ground of the Heresie as without ground they call it of the Montanists and Novatians was this that acknowledging the Church to have power to forgive lesse sinnes they the Novatians denied it the Power to forgive Apostasy or Idolatry To which the Montanists added Murther and Adultery But I have showed in my Book of the Right of the Church p. 17-27 that within the Church also as well as among the Montanists and Novatians some of these sinnes were not admitted to communion no not at the point of death And that there never was any opinion in the ancient Church that the Church hath any Power to forgive sinne immediately but onely by the medicine of Penance which it injoyneth I referre my selfe to that which here followeth Now it is plain that neither those parts of the Church nor the Novatians did hold those sinnes desperate but exhorted them to Penance as their cure in Gods sight agreeing in not readmitting them whither for the maintenance of Discipline or for fear the Church warranting their pardon who might prove not qualified for it should become guilty of their sinnes according to S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 22. Lay hands suddenly on no man nor partake in other mens sinnes For S. John and the Apostle to the Hebrews had authorized the Church to make difficulty of it though S. Paul had readmitted a branch of one of them the incestuous person at Corinth whether for the unity of that Church then in danger to be divided upon that occasion or as reasonably satisfied of the truth of his repentance But when the zeal of Christianity decreased as the number of Christians increased within and persecution without withdrew so many that there was no means left to preserve the Body without abating this severity the number of Apostates in some persecutions being considerable to the number of Christians we need seek no other reason why the Montanists and Novatians should be Schismaticks not properly Hereticks then their separating from the Church rather then condescend to that which the Body of the Church found requisite to be granted Let us see what crimes they are which the Eliberitane Canons that is the Canons of the Council of Elvira in Spain exclude from the communion even in case of death As if a man at age after Baptism commit adultery in the Temple of an Idol cap. I. If an Idol Priest having been baptized shall sacrifice again II. If such a one after Penance shall have committed adultery III. If a Christian kill a man by Witchcraft wherein there is Idolatry VI. If a Christian commit adultery after Penance VII If a Woman leaving her Husband without cause mary another VIII If a Father or Mother sell a child into the Stews or a child it selfe XII If a professed Virgine shall live in uncleannesse XIII If a man marry his daughter to an Idol Priest XVII If a Clergy-man commit adultery XVIII If he who is admitted to communion upon adultery in danger of death shall commit adultery again XLVII If a Woman kill the childe which she hath conceived of adultery
about to impose new Laws upon the Church But those new Laws I show you were excepted against from the beginning of pretending them Let any man show me that voluntary confession of secret sins was ever exceped against in Tertullian who writ that Book when he was of the Catholick Church earnestly perswading to it Likewise though he writ his Book de Pâ—dicitia when he was become a Montanist yet it is easie to discern what he speaks in it as a Montanist by discerning what the Catholick Church contests and what it allows of his doctrine In the seventh Chapter of that Book it is manifest that he calls those sinnes to Penance which he were a mad man that should take either for scandalous or for notorious The Novatians being a branch of the Montanists and refusing to reconcile the greatest sins are to be thought to have followed their order in reconciling lesse sins as it is manifest by S. Ambrose de Poenit. V. 2. that they did Therefore they and therefore the Catholick Church did practice the discipline of Penance upon sins neither notorious nor scandalous In S. Cyprianâ— you have severall places where he mentions Penance for those sinnes which were to be confessed according to the custome of the Church after a certain time of humiliation when they were to be admitted to imposition of hands that is to the prayers of the Church for the pardon of him whom the Bishops blessing which the â—mposition of hands signifies acknowledged hopefull for remission of sinnes Epist X. LV. The same S. Cypriane de lapsis manifestly instances in those that had committed Idolatry secretly or had resolved towards it what befel them because they revealed it not to the Church so that sometimes they did reveal it Here cometh in the fact of Nectarius related by Socrates V. 19. because the custome being to confesse to a Priest deputed to that purpose sinnes not otherwise known who was to direct what she should publickly declare when she came before the congregation a certain noble Woman whose case is there related proceeded to declare that which caused such scandall that thereupon Nectarius then Bishop of Constantinople thought fit to put down the office which that Priest then held and executed of receiving the confession of those sinnes which were afterwards in part to be made known to the Church as the Priest intrusted should direct For Socrates relating the discourse which he had with the Priest which advised Nectarius to abolish the office aforesaid saith that he told him it was to be feared that he had given occasion to bring S. Pauls precept to no effect which saith Communicate not in the fruitlesse workes of darknesse but rather reprove them Which must suppose the publishing of those sinnes which a man may pretend by brotherly correction to restore And it is manifest that secret confession of sinnes hath remained in the Eastern Church and in that of Constantinople particularly even to this time So that no man can imagine that it was abrogated by Nectarius Origen in Psal XXXVII Hom. II. advises indeed to look about you for a skilful Physitian to whom you may open the disease of your soul good reason For there being a number of Presbyters by whom every Church was governed and it being in a mans choice whom he would have recourse to were he not to blame that should not make diligent choice But when he adviseth further that if he think the sinne fit to be declared to the assembly of the Church as where it is to be cured doth he not require necessary Penance upon voluntary confessions S. Ambrose de Pâ—nit II. 7. I. 6. II. 8. 9. laboureth to abate the shame of confessing sinnes If he speak of publick sinnes there can be no reason why For what hath he to do to abate that shame that cannot be avoided That which may be avoided is that which cometh by confessing such sins as it is in a mans power to conceal The same is evident in S. Augustinâ— Hom. ult ex L. And is further cleared by this that it is evident that he who was discovered not to have discovered to the Church that sinne which he was privy to but the world was not is by many acts of the Church constrained to undergo Penance for that default And in the Eliberitanâ— Canons it is provided that he who confesseth of his own accord shall come off with a lighter Penance he who is revealed by another shall be liable to a harder censure Can. LXXVI But no evidence can be so effectuall as the introducing of the Law of auricular confession that is of confessing once a year as well as receiving the Eucharist once a year For be it granted as it is most true that this Law comes into force and effect by the secular power of those soveraignties of Christendom which complying with the interest of the Church of Rome have agreed and do agree to inact the decrees of those Councils which have been held by the authority of it or the provisions thereof during the time that no Councils are held by temporall penalties upon their iubjects Is it therefore imaginable that the Councill could have pretended to introduce this limitation and demand the secular power to inact it had it not been a custome in force before that act was done that people should submit themselves to Penance for those sinâ—es which the Church without themselves could not charge them with Could any man offer so much violence to his own reason as to affirm that which himself cannot believe he would easily be convinced by producing the fashion of Ashwednesday and the order for the greatest part of Christians to declare themselves Penitents at the beginning of Lent with a pretence of obtaining absolution to the intent of receiving the communion of the Eucharist at Easter Which being more ancient then that law sufficiently demonstrateth that the effect of it was not to introduce the confession of secret sinnes which alwayes had been in use and force in the Church but expresly to limit and determine that which had been alwayes done formerly for the future to be done by all and at the least once a year It remains now to show the originall and generall practice of the Church that there is no Tradition to evidence that no sinne after Baptism can obtain remission but by the Church speaking of such sinnes as make the grace of Baptism void which is sufficiently done already if we remenber that not only the Montâ—nists or the Novatians but the Church also did sometimes exclude some sinnes from all hope of reconciliation by the Church not excluding them neverthelesse from hope of pardon with God but not ingaging the Church to warrant it For I demand in what consideration that pardon is obtained which the Church supposes possible for them to obtain Is it not upon the same score as all Christians obtain padon of sin To wit by being qualified for it with that disposition of mind which
necessity of this condition will allow That is to say that it be understood to pardon sinne in as much and no otherwise then as the ministery thereof moveth to induce men to be Christians whither in profession or in performance Thus those who by that Christianity which the Church maintaineth are induced to believe that they are lost for ever unlesse they undertake the profession of Christianity being induced so to do are cleansed from sinne and made Heirs of everlasting life by the Baptism which the Church giveth Thus those who have forfeited the right which they attained by being baptized by forfeiting the profession upon which they attained it being reduced by the Church to a disposition of making it good for the future are thereby re-estated in the same right again And all the prayers which the Church can tender â—o God for remission of sinnes can no way be presumed or understood to be of force with God but upon supposition that those for whom they are made are either in the state or in the way of performing that which their Christian profession undertaketh This reason added to those circumstances of S. James his words and the originall practice of the Church afore quoted which show that he intendeth to speak of the applying of the Keyes of the Church to the sick throughly convinceth that remission of sinne is not attributed to the anointing of the sick but as an appertenance of the power of the Keyes passing upon them and upon supposition that by submitting to it the Church being inabled to warrant their pardon could with confidence pray for that bodily health which they chiefly need in that estate For if supposing this condition nothing can hinder remission of sinne if not supposing the same nothing can warrant it what reason can we imagine why the power of the Church and those persons which are intrusted on behalfe of it should be imployed in this businesse but to procure that disposition which onely qualifieth for remission of sinne And therefore I cannot allow the excuses which the School Doctors use to maintain the effect of this unction in the remission of sinne considering it precisely without that dependance which in the words of the Apostle it hath upon the Keyes of the Church They say the effect of it is to wipe away the remains of sinne whether originall or actuall consisting in that pronenesse to the injoying of the creature that faintnesse and sluggishnesse in following true virtue that weaknesse in tending to God which remain even in him that is perfectly restored to Gods grace For these if they be sinne then are they cured by the same means by which his sin is cured which how it is effected by the Church hath been oft enough said If not sinne God forbid but the prayers of the Church should prevail to weaken them in the sick But as those Prayers have their force uâ—on supposition of the condition so must they be understood to have the effect of forgivenesse ascribed them here by the Apostle in virtue of that disposition which the Ministery of the Church shall have produced And therefore I am not moved with those arguments which are produced to prove that the bodily health here promised hath no relation to the miraculous graces of the Apostles time It is said that those Graces are not given according to mens ranks in the Church but according to Gods good pleasure as S. Paul saith 1 Cor. XII 4-11 where he reckoneth up that variety of Graces which the spirit of God then stirred up in the Church without any intimation that they were given rather to publick then to private persons in the Church And therefore that it had been impertinent for S. James to name the Presbyters of the Church had he intended to speak of curing the sick by any such grace But it is easie to answer that such graces though common to private persons in the Church yet in reason were most frequently imparted to those that were most eminent in Christianity And that publick persons in the Church were made such upon presumption of their eminence above others in Christianity which presumption though it possibly may fail yet of necessity must hold good for the most part And that upon this account as the Apostles the Heads of the whole Church were most eminent in all Graces so it is in reason to be presumed that the Presbyters of the Church whatsoever were the office of Presbyters of the Church for the present were after indowed with those Graces then private Christians Whereupon it will follow for a thing which no reason can be showed why it should not come to passe though the Scripture offered no further evidence that it did come to passe that private persons injoying the Grace of healing by the Holy Ghost might restore to bodily health by anointing with oyl Not extending their function to the procuring of forgiveness for sinne which the publick ministery of the Church pretendeth to procure For on the other side notwithstanding the promise of bodily health in S. James it is no inconvenience to grant that the Prayers of the Church might fail of it though it be not granted that they fail of forgivenesse of sinne when the person is qualified The reason is because the promise of forgivenesse of sinne by the Gospel is absolute the condition being cleared that is supposing the person qualified for it But for bodily health there is no further promise by the Gospel then it shall seem to God that the condition of bearing Christs Cross in this or that man requireth It is also said that according to S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 22. Tongnes are a sign to unbelievers not Christians And therefore it is not to be supposed that the grace of healing was to be exercised to the benefit of believers but to the conversion of Infidels For S. Paul that cured Publius of a fever Acts XXVIII 8. left Trophimus at Miletum sick 2 Tim. IV. 20. and had Epaphroditus by him sick to death Phil. II. 26. 27. and cured not Timothy of his frequent infirmities 1 Tim. V. 23. But I answer again with S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit with That is to say Those â—raâ—es which do manifest that the Spirit of God is in the Church and therefore that Christianity comes from God are given neverthelesse to Christians to do good to Christians with though not to all alwaies but to such as God who hath given them the Grace shall move them to do good so with it But though I maintain that the promise of bodily health upon the Prayers of the Church belongs to those graces by which it then appeared that God is in his Church yet in that he requires the Presbyters of the Church in that he promises remission of sinne it is not to be imagined that bodily health and the exercise of that Grace which procured it is onely intended and
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
Epist IX ad Probum Statuimus fide Catholica suffragante illud esse conjugium quod primitus erat divina gratia fundatum Conventumque secundaemulieris priore superstite nec divortio ejectâ nullo pacto posse esse legitimum We decree the Catholick faith voting for it that to be mariage which first was founded upon Gods grace that was first made according to Christianity and that the wedding of a second wife leaving the first can by no means be lawful Which exception could possibly signifie nothing if in no case not of adultery a second could be maried while the first is alive And in the West Chromatius of Aquileia in Mat. V. as well as in the East Asterius Homil. an liceat dimittere uxorem the first damns him that shall mary again excepting adultery The second would have his hearers perswaded that nothing but death or adultery dissolves mariage But do I therefore say that the Church cannot forbid the innocent party to mary again or is bound by Gods law to allow it All Ecclesiastical Law being nothing but the restraining of that which Gods Law hath left indefinite And the inconveniences being both visible and horrible I conceive I am duly informed that George late Arch-bishop of Canterbury was satisfied in the proceeding of the High Commission Court to tie them that are divorced from marying again upon experience of adultery designed upon collusion to free the parties from wedlock having been formerly tender in imposing that charge The Greek Church may beter avoid such inconveniences not being tied to any Law of the Land but the tempering of the Canons remaining in the Governors of the Church But they that would not have the Lawes of the Church and the justice of the Land became Stales and pandars to such vilanies must either make adultery death and so take away the dispute or revive publick Penance and so take away the infamy of his bed and the taint of his issue that shall be reconciled to an Adulteresse or lastly bear with that inconvenience which the casualties of the world may oblige any man to which is to propose the chastity of single life in stead of the chastity of wedlock when the security of a mans conscience and the offence of the Church allows it not But though this in regard of the intricacies of the question and the inconveniences evident to practice may remain in the power of the Church yet can it never come within the power of the Church to determine that it is prejudiciall to the Christian faith to do so as by Gods Law And the Church that erres not in prohibiting mariage upon divorce for adultery will erre in determining for mater of faith that Gods law prohibites it so long as such reasons from the Scriptures are not silenced by any Tradition of the whole Church It is easie to see by S. Augustine de adulterini conjugiis II. 5-12 that publick Penance was the means to restore an adulteresse to the same reputation among Christians which an adulteresse that turned Christian must needs recover among Christians And that is the reason why the Canon of Arles orders that young Christians be advised not to mary again that their wives may be recovered of their adultery by Penance and so their mariage re-estated I see also that Justiniane Nov. CXVII hath taken order that women excessive in incontinence be delivered to the Bishop of the City to be put into a Monastery there to do Penance during life And supposing adultery to be death according to Moses Law the inconvenience ceaseth If the Civil Law inable not the Church to avoid the scandall of this collusion it is no marvail that the Church is constrained to impose upon the innocent more then Gods law requires to avoid that scandall which Gods law makes the greater inconvenience And thus having showed you that S. Austines interpretation of fornication is not true I have into the bargain showed you that it cannot serve to prove divorce upon other causes besides adultery and so the insolubility of mariage excepting our Saviours exception is as firmly proved as the consent of the Church can prove any thing in Christianity I know Origen argues that poysoning killing children robbing the house may be as destructive to the Society of Wedlock as Adultery And he thereupon seems to inferre that our Saviour excepts adultery onely for instance intending all causes equally destructive to wedlock as Grotius who follows his sense seems to limit it But Origens opinion will not interrupt the Tradition of the Church unlesse it could appear to have come into practice sometime in some part of the Church Neither would it serve his turn that would have those divorces which the secular Power allowes to extend to marying again For Origen never intended that his own opinion should bind but that it is in the power of the Church to void mariages upon other causes For he saith he knew some Governours of Churches suffer a woman to mary her former husband living Praeter Scripturam besides the Scripture And that as Moses permitted divorce to avoid a greater mischiefe But I may question whether they thought that against the Scripture which Origen thought to be against the Scripture And in the mean time as I do not see what breach his report can make upon the Tradition of the Church so it is plain the Power of the Church and not the secular did that which he reports And truly what the testimony of S. Austine extending that Adultery upon which our Saviour grants divorce to all mortall sinne but confining him that is so divorced not to mary another can avail him that would intitle the secular Power to create causes of divorce to the effect of marying again let all reason and conscience judge I shall conclude my argument Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis An exception settles the rule in all that is not excepted Either our Saviour intended that who had put away a Yoke-fellow for adultery should mary again or not If so he hath forbidden marying again upon other causes If not much more For though upon adultery he hath forbidden to mary again And thus is the Power of the Church in Matrimoniall causes founded upon the Law which our Lord Christ hath confined all Christians to of marying one to one and indissolubly whither without exception or excepting adultery For seeing that of necessity many questions must arise upon the execution of such a Law and that Civil Power may as well be enemy to Christianity as not and that as well professing to maintain it as professing to persecute it to say that God hath left the Consciences of Christians to be secured by the Civil Power submitting to what it determines is to say that under the Gospell God hath not made the observing of his lawes the condition of obtaining his promises This is that power which Tertulliane in several places expresly voucheth de Pudicitiâ cap. IV. Penes nos speaking
of the Church not onely of divine right as provided for by the Apostles but holding the rank of an end to which particular provisions of the Apostles in this mater seem but as means It is true I am farre from believing that had the Reformation retained this Apostolical Government the Church of Rome would thereby have been moved to joyn in it But when I see the Schisme which it hath occasioned to stand partly upon this difference When I see so many particulars begun by the Apostles as the Scriptures themselves evidence others determinable by the Church When I see those that correct Magnificat introduce instead of them those Lawes which have neither any witnesse from the Scriptures nor any footing in the authority of the whole Church I must needs conclude those that do these things in as much as they do them to be causes of the Schism that is Schismaticks For what authority upon earth can introduce any form reconcileable with that which the Apostles first introduced to procure the vanity of the Church being to continue one and the same Body from the beginning to the end but he must give cause of dissolving the unity of the said Body unlesse he can convince the rest of the Church that it is Gods act to whom all the Church is to be subject whereas to him they are not Wherâ—fore let not Presbyterians or Independents think that they have done their work when they can answer texts of Scripture so as not to be convinced that Bishops are of divine Right Unless they can harden themselves against the belief of one Catholick Church they must further give account why they depart from that which is not against Gods Law to introduce that which it commandeth not For that is to proclaim to the Church that they will not be of it unlesse they may be governed as they list themselves Whereas they cannot be of it by being governed otherwise then the whole Church from the beginning hath been Let them not marvail that those who go not along with them in it forewarn others of making themselves Schismaticks by communicating in their innovations But against the Independants I must further take notice that by the supposition of one Society of the whole Church the whole pretense of the Congregations is quite excluded For if God appointed all Churches to make one Church by the communion of all in the service of God supposing the same faith then did not God appoint all Congregations to be chief within themselves but to depend upon the whole both for the Rule of Faith and for the order of Gods service Again it is evident to common sense that the people of one Church can pretend no interess to give Law to another Church Whereas whomsoever we inable to preserve the unity of the whole those persons must eithâ—r have right to oblige those that are not of their own Congregations or else God shall hâ—ve provided that the Church shall be one but excluded the onely means by which it can be preserved one And therefore to all those texts of Scriptures which are alleged to prove the chief Power of the People in the Church which is the ground of the Congregations I give here this general answer which elsewhere I have applied to the said several passages First by way of exception that they can inferre no more now against the Clergy then they could thâ—n against the Apostles So that seeing the Apostles were then chief notwithstanding all that those Scriptures contain the Clergy also remain now chief in the Church Secondly and directly that they import no more then the tesâ—imony consent and concurrence of the people by way of suffrage or agreement and applause to the Acts of the Clergy the interess whereof is grounded upon the sensible knowledge which the people have of the persons concerned in Ordinations Censures or other Acts of the Church in regard whâ—reof it is no more then reason requires that they be duly satisfied of the proceedings of the Church without making them Judges of maters of Right in it So that to make the people chief in Church maters upon account of this Title is to make the people of England Soveraign because English Juries have power to return evidence in mater of fact either effectual or void Another reason I here advance upon supposition of the force and weight of the Tradition of the Church in evidencing the reason and intent of the sayings and doings of the Apostles recorded in the Scriptures Philip one of the seven having preached and converted and baptized the Samaritanes the Apostles at Jerusalem send down to them Peter and John at whose prâ—yers with â—â—ying thâ—â—r 〈◊〉 on them they receive the Holy Ghost Act. VIII 14-17 And so S. Paul â—â—yes hâ—nds upon the twelve men that were baptized afore at Ephesus â—â—â—â—hey receive the Holy Ghost Act. XIX 1-8 For what reason shall we imagine why they that were inâ—bled to baptize were not â—â—abled to give the Holy Ghost baptism being the condition upon which the Holy Ghost was due by the promise of the Gospel but to show that they were baptized into the uniâ—y of the Church out of which they were not to expect the Holy Ghost Thâ—refore that their Baptism may have effect that is give the Holy Ghost the allowâ—nce of the Apostles upon whose government the unity of the Church dependeth is requite Whiâ—h allowance their prayers for the Holy Ghost and Impoâ—â—â—ion of hands implâ—eth and presupposeth It cannot be doubted that the visible Grace of â—peaking in strâ—nge languages the great works of God was then given for an evidence of the presence of the Holy Ghost with Gods people whereupon it is called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. The manifestatioâ— of the Spirit But evâ—n of this kind of Graces S. Paul saith again 1 Cor. XIV 32. 33. The Spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets For God is not the author of unsetlednesse but of order as in all Churches of the Saints If therefore there come no confusion upon Prophets Prophesying one by one because God who is the Author of Order grants such inspirations and revelations to inferiours that they cease not therefore to be subject to those which he grants to Superiours How much more re asonable is it that the Gift of the Holy Ghost promised to them that are baptized should neverthelesse deâ—end upon the blessing of the Apostles So that when S. Peter sayes to them that were convâ—rted at Pentecost Act. II. 38. Repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto remission of sinnes and yâ— shall receive the gift of the Holy â—host It seems to me no more then reason requires that he â—upposes the same blessing As also S. Paul in those of whom he saith That having believed in Christ they were sealed by the Holy spirit of promise And again Grieve not the holy spirit of God whereby ye are sealed to the day
seen him in the flesh disparaging S. Paul that had not who therefore vindicateth himself to be neverthelesse 1 Cor. IX 1. 2 Cor. 5. 10. And indeed there is great cause to think that they were of Cerinthus his party who as Epiphanius relateth having taught at Antiochia that Christians are tied to Moses Law and being disowned by the Apostles to have received no such commission from them Act. XV. 1. 24. out of discontent set up a sect by themselves borrowing to their former Doctrine something of Simon Magus being of that time as you may see by Epiphanius and Irenaeus whereof this may justly seem to have sowed the seeds at Corinth about that time As for those who pretended to be Apostles and were not but were discovered to be otherwise by the Angel of the Church of Ephesus Apoc. II. 2. whose commission they pretended our Lords or the Apostles or what besides let every man judge For those whom S. Paul calls Apostles of the Churches 2 Cor. VIII 23. and Epaphroditus when he is called the Apostle of the Philippians and minister of S. Pauls necessities Phil. II. 25. I am confident their titles import not Apostles to but from the said Churches that is not sent by God or any body else to them not that they might not have commission from the Apostles but that it is not here signified by this Title but sent by those Churches with commission to bestow their oblations at Jerusalem and by the Philippians to present the offerings which they contributed to the support of S. Paul Phil. IV. 10-18 Now our Lord having ordained not onely twelve Apostles for the Heads of the twelve Tribes of that spiritual Israel of his Church which he now began to create but also LXX inferiour Disciples though not called Apostles yet sent to preach by our Lord during his life time Luk. X. 1. answerable to the LXX Elders of Israel under Moses and in after ages Though it cannot be doubted that those whom our Lord had set his best marks upon during his life time were and were to be of greatest authority in his Church after the raising of it yet we have no mark left to show that these LXX were by the said Commission of our Lord during his life time intituled to any rank or particular charge in the Church after his death but by the appointment of the Twelve and acceptation of the Church And therefore I find no difficulty in believing those Ancients which conceive that some of the seven which are the first that we read of applied by the Appstles to any particular office or function in the Church may have been of the number of the said LXX Disciples No not though we allow according to the sense of all antiquity that they were properly Deacons to the Twelve as Governours of the whole Church at that time comprised in the City of Jerusalem and the adjacent parts For was not their function sacred and Ecclesiastical which before the ordaining of them was performed by the Apostles themselves Were not the Monies which they dispensed the oblations of Christians consecrated to God in the maintenance of the Church Were not the Tables which they furnished out of those goods the feasts of love where Christians at the beginning to have more opportunity of instruction from the Apostles and to strengthen one another did eat together the poor at the charge of the rich celebrating withall the Eucharist He that doubts of the premises let him satisfie himself by the reasons premised He that finds the evidence of them why should he make difficulty in admitting those seven to be Deacons then more then in admitting those who afterwards either waited at the Altar or dispensed the oblations of believers to the maintenance of the poor The State of Christianity was altered and so the maner of exercising their function was not the same But if the reason of the difference be no more then follows upon alteration in the state of Christianity the Society and Corporation of the Church remaining all one then is the office the same Let no man then that believes a Church by divine right and consecration of the same imagine the Deacons office to be conversant in temporal things because in dispensing of monies those monies being consecrated to God for the maintenance of the Faith Nor let any man that sees these seven as soon as they are ordained to wait upon these Tables fall to preaching the Gospel Stephen at Jerusalem Philip in Samaria and why not all the rest as occasion may serve think this any stranger then that the Apostles themselves should wait upon the same Tables at such tims as no man doubts that they preached the Gospel The empty noise of Minister of the word and Sacraments â—sounding in the mouth of those who scorn to acknowledge any error in themselves or their â—faction binds up poor people like children in a biggin of vain belief that by Gods Law no man is to Preach or Baptize that may not consecrate the Eucharist who were they to prove what they take for granted would be as silent as their hearers But if these seven attend upon these Tables and that â—under the Apostles how comes it that the Oblations of the Antiochians are consigned to the hands of the Presbyters by Paul and Barnabas Act. XI 30 Forsooth what were these Presbyters but so many Lay Elders to give check to the Apostles by their interess in disposing of the Church Goods Sure they that have heard of XII Princes of Tribes and LXX Elders that governed all Israel with and under Moses and in correspondence with them XII Apostles and LXX Disciples the â—irst fruits of the spiritual Israel under our Lord Christ will not commit so gross an inconsequence as not to subordinate them to the Twelve He that admits that which I said even now that it doth not appear that the LXX Disciples whatsoever dignity and respect they might have among the Disciples by being so sent did hold any office in the Church by virtue of it but that which they were designed to by the act of the Church must also allow that upon such designation both the LXX and others might properly be called Presbyters or Elders Onely supposing the name of Presbyters to be relative to the Body of those whereof they are Presbyters there will be as much difference between them and the Apostles as between the Twelve Princes and the Elders of Israel to whom all maters of the Law resorted which could not be ended at home and every litle Piepouder Judge that could decide alone or with two more upon compromise Wherefore I will not contend with them who think it so convenient to say that those Elders of Acts XI 30. were Presbyters of the local Church of Jerusalem For when upon the mater the Church of Jerusalem and the whole Church were both a thing the Church of Antiochia being but yet in the Cradle and therefore those of Iudea and
at Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the word of God sent to them Peter and John Can S. Peter go upon commission from the Apostles who gives the Apostles the commission they have Those that preached circumcision at Antiochia had no commission for it from the Church at Jerusalem Act. XV. 24. It must have been from S. Peter if that Church had acted then by virtue of his Commission But he was present and is signified as one of them that writ these words Let any man stand upon it that will that the false Apostles whom S Paul writes against 2 Cor. XI 13. pretended commission from S. Peter because of the opposition which they made between him on the one side and S Paul and Apollos on the other side 2 Cor. I. 12. Though I showed you beter reason afore that they pretended that commission from the Apostles which they disowned Acts XV. 24. It is easie for me to say that they pretended not S. Peters name as Soveraign over the Apostles but as founder of the Church of Corinth as well as S. Paul which Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius witnesseth Whereas when S. Paul pleads his Commission of Apostle from God and not from man Gal. I. 1. II. 6 9. and that in express opposition to S. James and S. John as well as to S. Peter it is manifest that they as well as S. Peter might have pretended to give it had he not been an Apostle but being an Apostle none but our Lord Christ And therefore when he resists S. Peter and reproves him to the face Gal. II. 11-14 understand this resistance and reproof as you please whither true or colourable had S. Peter been Monarch it had not been for an Apostle to colour his proceeding with a pretense inferring rebellion against his Soveraign Wherefore there may be lesand greater Apostles foâ— personâ—ble qualiâ—ies And S. Paul that is the least of them for his calling may be inferiour to none for his labours 1 Cor. XV. 9. 10. 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 11. 12. Nay S. Peter may have a standing pre-eminence of Head of the Bench to avoid confusion and to create order in their proceedings and yet their commission be immediate from our Lord and the mater of it and the power it creates the same for substance Having thus destroyed this ground upon which some people claim a Monarchy over the Church for the Pope by the scriptures without seeking for other exceptions to the pretense that may be made to the same purpose from the Tradition of the Catholick Church I proceed to setle the ground of that eminence and superiority which I conceive some Churches have over others for the unity of the whole Church Because of necessity the reason and ground upon which it stands must be the measure of it how farre it extends And the positive truth thereof will be negatively an exception to that Soveraignty which the Bishop of Rome by the succession of S. Peter pretendeth I say then that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ intending to convert the World to the Faith and to establish one Church of all that should be converted to it did agree and appoint that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chief Churches and that the Churches of inferiour Cities should depend upon them and have recourse to them in all things that might concern the common Christianity whither in the Rule of Faith or in the Unity of the Church in the offices of Gods service reserving unto themselves the ordering of those things which being of lesse moment might concern their own peace and good order rather then the interesse of other Churches I do not pretend to produce any act under the Apostles hands in which this conclusion is signed but to proceed upon the principles premised to argue and to inferre that those things which I shall evidently show have passed in the Church could not otherwise have come to pass unlesse we could suppose that a constant order which hath wholly taken place in the Church ever since the Apostles could have prevailed over those infinite wayes which confusion might have imagined had there been no ground from whence this certain order should rise And here I do profess that if any man will needs be contentious and say that this order came not in by the appointment of the Apostles themselves because during their time the probability of converting the Romane Empire and other Nations to Christianity could not appear and that it doth not appear by any circumstance of Scripture that the Spirit of Prophesy was given them to such purposes I will rather grant all this then contend about those terms which I need not insist upon though I do firmly believe that before all the Apostles left the World the conversion of the Gentiles was their design and the design of their successors But I will provide on the other side that whither the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors in whom the power of governing the whole Church was as fully to all purposes as in the Apostles themselves for though they might be assisted by the Gift of Prophesy in those occasions as it is probable they were at the Council of Jerusalem Acts XV. yet must their authority proceed whether so assisted or not the obligation upon the Church must needs remain the same to cherish and maintain that Order which once might have been established by them the Unity of the Church which is the end of it not being otherwise attainable And upon this ground I maintain that the Churches of Rome Alexandria and Antiochia had from the beginning a priviledge of eminence above other Churches For Rome being the seat of the Empire Alexandria and Antiochia which had formerly been the Seates of the Successors of Ptolomee in Aegypt and Seleucus in Asia having from their first coming under the Romane Empire had their peâ—uliar Governours it is no marvail if the Churches founded in them held their peculiar priviledges and eminences over the Churches of their resorts from the very founding of Christianity in these mother Cities and the propagating of it from thence into inferiour Cities and thence over the confines And this is the onely reason that can be rendred why the Church of Jerusalem which in respect of the first abode of the Apostles and the propagation of Christianity is justly counted the mother of all Churches and which gave law to that of Antiochia and the rest that were concerned in the same dispute with it and during the Apostles time received oblations of maintenance from the Churches of the Gentiles became afterwards inferiour to these and in particular to that of Antiochia But he that shall compare these Cities and the greatnesse of them and eminence over their respective Territories with that of Rome not onely over the rest of the Empire but over those Cities with find it consequent to the ground of this design not that the Church of Rome should be
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be
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
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
way allow that other Churches could be obliged to follow the Church of Rome in this sentence the unity of the Church which is the end being of nearer interest and concernment to them all then the authority of Victor or of his Church or then uniformity in this point which is but the mean to obtain it Which as it is true so was it indeed the reason that Irenaeus alleged to Victor â—o divert him from that resolution in Eusebius Eccl. Hist V. 25. 26. where you may see that his credit and the credit of the rest of those that held communion with both prevailed to void those leters which Victor had issued to break of communion with the Churches of Asia And therefore I cannot wish to show you better marks both of the dependence of Churches and the superiority of the Church of Rome and also that this superiority was regular and not soveraign as that of a Monarch when the greatest of inferiour Churches have recourse and respect to it as the center of their communion and yet do not absolutely give up themselves to yield to the authority of it as they do to the sentence of the Council of Niâ—aea because it could not be reasonable for the Churches of Asia to stand out with it Whereby you see the difference between the authority of the Pope and the authority of a general Council The businesse of Novatianus will not require many words to evidence the same consequence by it The Church of Rome it self was the seat of the businesse and the calamity thereof suffering a Schism within her own bowels the occasion of it And I appeal to the experience of the world whither intestine dissension do not discover the respect all men owe to their Neigbours by the need they have of them for the composing of it But not to speak of occasion of advantage but of termes of right that Church having gotten two Heads Cornelius and Novatianus who was then judge which side ought to be accounted the Church of Rome â—o that the other party should be obliged to submit and joyn with it For had it been a Law that obliged the whole Church that those who had fallen away in time of persecution be not admitted to Penance and by consequence to the communion any more which was the motive and ground why Novatianus was made Bishop against Cornelius certainly the rest of the Church must have acknowledged Novatianus who maintained it not Cornelius who waved it Notwithstanding that Cornelius was made by sixteen Bishops of the then resort of that Church Novatianus but by three For though the Canon of the Apostles requiring onely three Bishops or two at least to the ordaining of a Bishop may very well seem to be the ancienter custome in the Church then the IV Canon of Nicaea which provideth that it be done by the consent of all the resort either present or under their hands referring themselves to three that are present yet is it plain that the act of three oâ— two at least was accepted upon presumption of the consent of the rest anâ—â—â—â— dispatch of businesse because Ordinations would otherwise have been â—nrâ—â—â—onâ—bly troublesome But this Canonicall advantage of Cornelius his câ—use could noâ— have wayed against the Novatians plea had it been indeâ—d a 〈…〉 â—â—ds Law to the whole Church that Apostates be not readâ—itted â—o 〈◊〉 For this not onely the Novatians stood upon but afterwards 〈◊〉 â—â—â— persâ—â—ution of Diocletian the Meletians fell away from the 〈…〉 â—o other quarrel as you may see by Epiphanius Haer. LXVIII In thâ—◠〈…〉 the Authority of the rest of the Church must have oversway 〈…〉 of the reâ—ort of the Church of Rome the greatest part whâ—â—◠〈…〉 for Cornelius And because it was a point hitherto not decide◠〈…〉 questionâ—ble in the Church therefore it comes to the sentence 〈…〉 Now it is a question not to be answered by those who make 〈…〉 of the Church of Rome Monarch over the whole how then th◠〈…〉 giving Law to that Church should depend on other Churches as here 〈…〉 iâ— doth For the common intereâ—t of Christianity whether in mater o◠〈…〉 is the ground of the dispute or in the unity of the Church 〈…〉 calleth in question is that which makes the Novatians whither 〈…〉 Sâ—hismaticks not acknowledging Cornelius after that he was aâ—knowleâ—◠〈◊〉 â—y the rest of the Church And for this cause it is that the Churâ—h oâ— â—â—â—â—ochia that is the Synode whereof that Church was the Heâ—◠〈…〉 a return from the Church of Rome for the favour they did it in 〈◊〉 Cornâ—lâ—us which they made great difficulty to do a great while as you 〈…〉 by that which I related in the first Book For supposing that 〈…〉 of Antiochia did no more in the businesse then right required yet 〈…〉 goes he that hath right done him may well acknowlâ—ge himselfe 〈…〉 that doth him right In the mean time S. Cypriane and the Churâ—◠〈…〉 with the dependences of it declare for Cornelius from the 〈…〉 〈◊〉 with his Church of Alexandria and the dependences thereâ—◠〈…〉 â—nâ—ormation are wonne to their side Neither could Fabius an◠〈◊〉 Châ—râ—â—es that resorted to Antiochia have stood out without great mischieâ—â—â—â—â—â— whole And therefore what thanks soever they may deserve of the Church â—â— Rome for doing their duty in such a distresse of it Who can say that the Sovâ—â—aign Power of the Church of Rome obliged them to make it Soveraign de facto which being divided de jure it was not when it is so evident that the unity oâ— the Church obliged them each in their several ranks to concur to that means which God had provided for the maintenance of it by establishing the Church of Rome in the first place In the businesse that â—ell out about rebaptizing Hereticks that returned to the Church when we see the Church of Rome alone ingaged against the Churches of Africk and oâ— the East both for you must remember what I observed afore that thoâ—e who made the moâ—t difficulty in disowning Novatianus were the same that stood for rebaptizing Hereticks with the African Churches on their side we are â—ound to presume that many and great Churches depended upon it to wâ—igh against so great a consent as opposed it For in point of fact it is evident that it was the consent of the geatest part that obliged the rest to joyn with it And in point of right the presumption iâ— peremptory that the greatest part â—ould not agree to determine against Gods Law but walked within those bounds which God had confined his Church with We are not then to marvail so much at the heats which passed between Stephen Bishop of Rome on one side and S. Câ—prian â—or Cartâ—age and Firmilianus chief Bishop of Pontus on the other side â—or it is evident that they referred not themselves to Stephens opinion concerning Gods Law whose successors are now pretended infallible And yet did refer themselves to the judgement of the
whole Church departing from their rigour in consideration of it In the mean time it must not be neglected that Rome having Dionysius of Alexandria to side with it was able to weigh against so great a consent Which giveth no leave to abate any thing of the regular pre-eminence of it above other Churches But when we see that neither Rome prevailed that no Hereticks should be rebaptized nor the adverse party that all but an abatement is made by the Council of Nicaea in rebaptizing Samosatenians of Laodicea in rebaptizing Moâ—tanists by the Churches of Africk the practice whereof Optatus relateth in rebaptizing Sabellians to say nothing of other Rules mentioned in the first Book did they take shall we say the breast of the Pope for the cenâ—er of infallibility in the Church and the voice of the whole Church for evidence of Tradition from the Apostles or the sentence thereof to be without appeal in maters not determined by it Neither will I passe by that litle that we have upon record in the case of Dionysius of Alexandria complained of to Dionysius of Rome as inclining to that which was afterwards the Heresy of Arius in things that he had written against Sabellius Without observing not as most do that in so great a case recourse is had to the Church of Rome and to no Church besides it but that there is no remembrance left of any recourse had to other Churches when as there is remembrance of the recourse that was had to the Church of Rome in it For iâ— appeareth by the course that was held in other cases that the ordinary way was to communicate maters concerning the common interest with as many Churches as there was convenience to do As expecting reâ—ress by their conâ—urrence and assistance And therefore I count it ridiculous to suppose that a â—ater of so great concernment was not referred to any but the Bishop of Rome because it is not recorded of any besides it For what reason or sense is there to expect thâ—t when we are so scâ—nâ—ed of records in the first ages of the Church we should â—ind in every particular businesse remembrance of that which was alwayes done But when in this as in all other cases which I have touched you find recourse alwayes had to the Church of Rome but very little or no mention of other Churches in the West especially though concerned in the mater as much as it shall we not take it for an argument that they usually referred themselves to the Church of Rome expecting satisfaction in their common interests from the trust which they reposed in it In the mater of Samosatenus there are two passages expresly signifying the two chief points of my position Read the leter of the Synod giving account of their proceedings to all Churches and tell me who can have the confidence to maintain that the force of their sentence depended onely upon the Popes allowance It is true the leter is written on purpose to obtain the consent of other Churches by giving them account of their proceedings For they did noâ— presume of the justice of them upon any visible circumstance of the persons place maner or form in which they were assembled This they expected from the mater and ground of their sentence and the way of proceeding to it But when the same account that is given to Rome is given to other Churches evâ—ry one as they were of consequence to the Whole neither can the approbâ—tion of one be supposed to oblige the Whole nor doth any thing hinder it to be held for the Head or prime part of the Whole and of most consequence to sway the resolution of the whole in which the presumption that the sentence is according to right becometh compleat But when the seculâ—r Power is called upon to give execution to it by the force of this World Aureliane the Emperour suspendeth his proceeding upon the resolution of Rome and Italy Whereby he sheweth that these were held to be of most regard and consequence in maters that concerned the whole For seeing Aureliane at that time having a good opinion of Christians whom a while after he persecuted determined to do them a favour in quiâ—ting their differences by way of right it cannot be imagined that he would take a course which they should refuse but such as the order of the Church established before did require And therefore the allowance of the Bishops of Rome and Italy is expressed for a just presumption that an act done by such a Synod and afterwards acknowledged by them could not be disowned by the rest of the Church In the mean time when he names the Bishops of Rome and Italy I must not omit an opinion that hath been published many years since because it seems considerable The ground whereof is this That Sex Aurelius Victor Epit. in Adrianâ— reports that the Government of the Romane Empire which was afterwards established by Constantine was first moulded and framed in the most materiall points of it by Adriane Whereupon it becomes probable that when Aureliane refers himselfe to the judgement of the Bishop of Rome and Italy the meaning is to the Bishops of Rome and Milane and the rest of those Churches that resorted unto Rome and Milane as the chief Churches upon which they depended For that after Constantine Milane was the Head of all the rest of those Provinces of Italy that reâ—orted not to the Church of Rome it is so manifest that I will not trouble the Reader with proving it here again There are besides some cases mentioned in S. Cyprians Epistles of great force to clear the terms upon which the unity of the Church subsisted as well as the being and constitution of it which some of them have been already alleged to evidence Basilides Bishop of Asturica in Spain convicted of Apostasy in persecution to the worship of Idols was deposed by the Bishops of those quarters and another setled in his stead He repairs to Stephen Bishop of Rome to obtain by false information and favour his sentence to restore or to confirm him S. Cyprian excuses Stephen as circumvented blaming him thâ— did it but not for going to Rome or seeking to be restored by that means For to say truth he must have blamed the contrary party that had recourse to Carthage seeking to maintain what they had done by the sentence of the Church of Carthagâ— which that LXVIII Epistle caries as well for Martialis Bishop it seems of Emerita in Spain as Basilides whom for the like crime he judges unworthy to hold his Bishoprick Again Martianus Bishop of Arles adhered to Novatiaâ—us as S. Cyprian was informed by the Bishop of Lions Hereupon he writes to Stephen at Rome to write into Gaul for the deposing of Marcianus and the settling of another in his stead Epist LXVII Again Felicissimus and Fortunaâ—â—s Presbyters of the Church of Carâ—hage under S. Cyprian with others to the number of five having made a party
to restore those that were fallen away in persecution contrary to the resolution of the Church which had referred it to a Council as we learn by S. Cyprian Epist XXXVIII XL. with Fortunatus a Bishop of this party betaking themselves to Rome are first refused by Cornelius but upon appearance of a party in his Church for them put him to a stand In this case S. Cyprian writing his LV. Epistle acknowledges the Church of Rome the seat of S. Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the Priesthood was sprung but maintaines that every Bishop hath a portion of Christs flock assigned him to govern upon his account to Christ And therefore that causes are to be ended where they riâ—e and the good intelligence between Bishops ought not to be interrupted by carying causes abroad to be judged again Is not all this true supposing the case For who câ—n chuse but blame a schismaticall attempt But could any man hinder Basilides and Martialis from seeking the Church of Rome had their cause been good seeing their adverse paâ—ty did and might seek to foâ—â—ain Churches Was it not necessary to seek both to Carthage and to Rome for the freeing of the Church of Arles under Marciâ—nus from communion with the Novatians Here I conâ—eive lies the truth Some causes of necessity have recourse to the Church of Rome to wit such as necessarily concern the whole Church either in the faith or in the unity of it Such was the cause of Marcianus which could not be ended but by the same consent which cast the Novatians out of the Church Was the cause of Basilides and Martialis of the same weight was it not meerly personal and concâ—rning mater of fact whither they had indeed sacrificed to Idols or not no question remaining in point of right that such could not be Bishops yet could not the Bishops of Spain over-rule the Bishop of Rome not to receive information from the aggrievâ—d Their way was to have recourse to other Churches the consent whereof might out-way the Church of Rome together with the goodnesse of the cause And the Church of Carthage must have done the same had Felicissimus and Fortunatus found reception at Rome and credit to balâ—nce their cause against S. Cyprian and the African Church So that causes of Faith necessarily concerning the whole Church whensoever they rendâ—r the peace thereof questionable those that for their weight do not concern â—he whole will concern it when they render the peace thereof questionable And so long as Law provideth not bounds to determine what causes shall be ended at home in the parts where they rise what cause is there that may not be pretended to concern the whole and by consequence the Church of Rome which being the principal Church what cause concerning the whole can end without it He that admits not this supposition conâ—â—sting in the regular pre-eminence denying the unlimited Power of the Church of Rome over other Churches will never give a reason why recourse is alwayes had to the Church of Rome and yet if the cause require to other Churches to ballance it The unity of the Church and communion with it is the thing that is â—ought The consent of the greatest Churches that of Rome in the 〈◊〉 place is the meanes to obtain it This businesse therefore is much of kin to that of the Donatists triall under Constantine when they petitioned the secular Power that they might be heard by the Bishops of Gaul intimating the reason vvhy they declined the Bishops of Italy to be because they might be tainted with falling away or shuffling in the perâ—ecution of Diocletian which they charged their adverse party in Africk with because they expresse this for the ground of their Petition in Optatus I. that under Constantius there had been no persecution in Gaâ—l Here I must pass by the consideration of any thing that may concern the dispute between secular and Ecclesiasticall Power as not concerning this place But when Constantine by his answer assigns them for Judges the Bishops of Rome and Milane with such and such of their suffraganes joyning with them the Bishops of Collen Autun and Arles in Gaul to satisfie them it is plain that he refuses them to transgresse that respect which the constitution of the Church challenged for the Churches of Rome and Milane that such causes as concerned the unity of the Church in the Western parts of the Empire should be determined not by the Pope alone noâ— the Church of Rome alone but by the Churches of Rome and Milane as the chief Churches of that part of the Empire the Church of Rome alwayes in the first place On the other side when the Donatists not satisfied with their sentence petition the Emperour again that it may be review'd and the Emperour adjourns them for a second triall to a Council at Arles it is plain that hee allowes them not an appeal from the former sentence because many of those that were Judges in the former Synod did vote in the later Synod But it is as plain that the parties then held not the Popes judgement either alone or in Council unquestionable unlesse all were madd in pretending to give either check or strength to that sentence which was originally unquestionable If therefore a sentence given by the Pope in a Council of Italy which some Gaulish Bishops joyned thereunto might be revised in a fuller Council of Gaulish Bishops with the concurrence of many others as well Italian and Spanish to say nothing of three from Britaine the first unquestionable record of the British Churches is it not manifest that Euclids axiome that the whole is greater then any part of it takes place in the Church as well as the words of S. Jerome Orbis major est Vrbe that the world is greater then the City of Rome Surely if S. Austine Ep. CLXII say well that the Donatists might have appealed to a General Council had they been justly grieved by the sentence at Rome his saying will hold if they had been grieved by the Council of Arles though concluding the Western Church But it will hold also of the Council of Arles that it had been madnesse to call it had not the generality thereof extended to conclude the Western Church further then the former at Rome though the cause came not to it by appeal CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminences of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth HEre the next consideration for time being that of the Council of Nicaea the VI Canon whereof first limited by written Law the pre-eminences of Churches in the Empire having taken place by custome before I will not repeat that
neither be clear nor evident unlesse â— limite the greatness of Churches by such degrees as took place afterwards when Constantine having put the civill Government of the Empie under some Praefectis Prâ—torio whom we may call in English Masters of his Palace appointed every one of them several Lieutenants in their severall quarters As him of Gaul to speak of the West which concernâ— us most one in Britain one in Gaul and one in Spain Him of Italy one at Rome one at Milane and one at Carthage in Africk which was laid to that Government Him of the East one at Alexandria for Aegypt one at Antiochia for that quarter which was properly called the East of the Empire one at Casarsa for Pontus one at Ephesâ—s for Asia and one at Constantinople for Thrace And him of Illyricum one for the East of it at Thessalonica one for the West of it at Sirmium For every one of these Lieutenants having under his disposition a certain mass or number of Provinces and every one of these Provinces a certain chief City the seat of the civill Government as well as the chief Church of the Province and the residences of the Lieutenants themselves being the resorts of the appeals out of the Provinces the Rule of the Church remains setled by the subject of it the Churches of the Head Cities of every Diocese so theycalled that Mass of Provinces which was allotted to each Lieutenant challenging a regular pre-eminence over the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces as they over the Churches of ordinary Cities within the same Province But as it would be ridiculous to attribute these pre-eminences to the secular Power because it createth the civill pre-eminences of the Cities and not to the Church which presupposing the act of civill Power cast it selfe into the like foâ—m for the same rule was in force when the Empire enemy to the Church did nothing in it So I shall challenge all men that have their senses exercised to discern of such maters to judge whither all Christians could have agreed of their own heads to yeeld these pre-eminences had they not found the rule delivered them by the Apostles to require it For it is manifest that from the beginning afore Constantine there was respect had to the pre-eminence of Churches proportionably to the greatnesse of their Cities in the Government of the Empire The instances of Rome Alexandria Anâ—iochia Ephesus Corinth Thessalonica Câ—sarea Carthage Milane Lions and others as others come to be mentioned in the records of the Church not admitting any visible exception to a rule so originally so generally so evidently received Therefore as for that plea which the Church of Rome advanceth so farre beyond reason and measure of S. Peters Headship by divine right of his sitting last at Rome before at Antiochia and by his Deputy S. Mark at Alexandria as if all the Churches of Asia Africk and Europe were by this means of his lot if we take it as it sounds it will appear a contradiction to the light of common reason that the Church of Rome should have that pre-eminence by being the seat of the first Apostle to which other Churches have nothing proportionable by having been the seats of other Apostles For had there not been more in the case that which Epiphanius Haer. LXX saith That had the controversie about keeping Easter risen before the removing of the Church of Jerusalem to Pella at the beginning under the Apostles it must have resorted thither must have taken place alwayes That is the Church of Jerusalem which was at the first the seat of all the Apostles must have been for ever the chiefe Church But if we suppose that the Apostles order was the greatest Churches to be those of the greatest Cities we give a reason of the greatnesse of the Church of Rome from the priviledge not of S. Peter alone but of S. Peter as the chief Apostle and as S. Paul as him that laboured most when they upon that agreement made choice of Rome for their seat and the exercise of their Apostleship But that the Church of Alexandria the priviledges whereof never extended beyond the Diocese of the Governour of Aegypt Lieutenant in that quarter should have right over all the Churches of Africk that the Church of Antiochia the priviledges whereof were never visible beyond the Diocese of the East should have right over all the Churches of Asia by S. Peters Headship and yet Alexandria where he never sat but in and by S. Mark before Antiochia where he sat in person seven years is such a devise as nothing but prejudice and faction can make probable For the right then of summoning and ordering Councils if we speak of Provincial Councils it is manifestly in the Bishop of the Mother City which succession hath called the Archbishop If of a greater resort in the first Bishop of a Diocese called since the Primate If it were gathered out of severall Dioceses whereof we have an instance in that of Antiochia against Samosatenus out of Pontus and Asia as well as the East it is to be ascribed to the authority of the greatest and next Bishop concurring to quench the fire in their neighbour Church as Firmilianus of Caesarea and Macarius of Jerusalem were presidents in that of Antiochia For though the priviledges of the Church were setled upon the form of the Empire yet it seemeth thâ—re was alwayes an exception for that of Jerusalem as having been the Mother Church before the Rule was to take place not onely by the Canon of Nicaa which now I come to but by the act of Chalcedon which made it absolute within certain quarters utterly exempted from Antiochia by a concordate confirmed in Council The Canon of Nicaea which I spoke of is thought to have been made upon occasion of the Schism of Meletius in Aegypt which had with-drawn the Churches there from their obedience to Alexandria For it orders that the ancient rights thereof be maintained as also those of Antiochia with an exception for Jerusalâ—m saving the respect due to the Mother Sea of Caesarea because the Church of Rome also hath the like priviledge over these Churches which Ruffinâ—s in his Histories of the Church translates Suburbicarias This Translâ—tion hath occasioned many Books to show what were these Ecelesiae subâ—â—bicariae whereof it seems there are but three meanings possible There was then a â—overnour of the City of Rome to whom resorted all appeals from the Magistrates of the City and within a hundred miles all which Country being comprised in one title of Regiones suburbicariae there is an opinion that the Churches of that Precinct by the name of Ecclesiae suburbicariae were then of the Popes Jurisdiction and they alone Another conceit may be that urbs in the 〈…〉 ivative suburbicariae is opposed to Orbis and all Churches in the World â—â—bjâ—cted by the Canon to the Church of Rome as all Cities were to Rome Wâ—iâ—h â—â— for
nothing For what Jurisdiction had any civill Magistrate that govâ—rnâ—d Rome over other Cities without the Precinct oâ— it And yet shall we be so â—iâ—â—â—ulous the Canon describing the priviledges of the Church of Rome by those of Alexandria which extended as far as the Government of Aegypâ— â—o confine those of the prime Church of the Empire within the 〈…〉 I suppose therefore they have farre the best cause who suppose 〈◊〉 to be called Regiones suburbicariae which were under the Lieutenant of Rome in oppoâ—tion to the Lieutenant of Italy resident a Milane having under him seven of those Provinces into which that Government was then divided In which regard the other ten Provinces which were under the Lieutenant of the City resident at Rome are properly called Suburbicariae though pâ—rt of them were the Isles of Sicilia Sardinia and Corsica c. And here lies the greatest question nothing else bearing water in my judgement For by this Canon â—ll the right and title of the Church of Rome is to be measured by the right oâ— any one of those Churches which were the Heads of Dioceses taking Dioceses for the residences of Lieutenants all which are to be suppoâ—ed equall in power granting onely Rome the precedence which all Order requiâ—es For what right can the Church of Rome challenge which this Canon acknowleges not Is it right or wrong which the decree of the whole Church alloweth not Strongly argued I confess which notwithstanding I am not satisfied with For the intent of the Ganon being to setle the lights of Alexandria is satisfied by rehearsing the like rights in the Churches of Rome and Antiochiâ— which by supposing as in force of old it setleth for the future But is this to declare and limite the Title thereof in regard of the rest especially for the Western Church which the Councill had no occasion to meddle with Judge first by that which appears In the greatest concernments of the Church concerning Montanus concerning the keeping of Easter concerning the cause of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of the Donatists of Dionysius Alexandrinus In fine concerning those which I mentioned out of S. Cyprians Epistles What one Church can there be named to the concurrence whereof the like respect hath been had in things concerning the Faith and Unity of the Whole as that of Rome For that which follows I think there remains no dispute the priviledges thereof still increasing as well by the acts of Councils as by custome and use And of that I must demand a reason how they should come to be cast upon one had there not been from the beginning a stock of Title exclusive to any other of the greatest Churches acknowledging the order of the Apostles to have provided no further then that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chiefe Churches leaving the rest to the Church upon consideration of the State of the World to determine One particular I must insist upon for the eminence of it I have already mentioned the generall Councils whereof how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches And this admission what can it can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Councill of Nicâ—a though the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Conncils as the Churches of Britaine had their Bishops at the I. Council of Arles at the Councils of Sarâ—ica and of Ariminum in other occasions they may justly seem to referre themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the acts of it So that S. Jerome might very well name Rome and the West as the same paâ—ty in his LXXVII Epistle Haereticum me cum Occidente haereticum cum Aegypto hoc est cum Damaso Petroque condemnent Let them condemn me for an Heretick with the West and with Aegypt that is with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria And against Vigiâ—â—nâ—â—us he calls the Western Churches the Churches of the Apostolick See So S. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Crown of the West Epist X. and S. Austine cont Jul. Pelag. I. 2. Puto tibi eam partem Orbis sufficere debere in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit dominus glorioso Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem Beatum Iâ—nocentiuâ— si audire voluisses I conceive that part of the world should serve your turn in which it pleased God to Crown with a glorious Martyrdom the first of his Apostles The President of which Church blessed Innocent if you would have heard He supposes Innocent being over the Church of Rome to be over the Western Church In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril threatens John of Jerusalem that those who will have communion with the West must submit to the sentence of the Synod at Rome against Nestorius Part. I. cap. XXI the leter of Pope Agatho to the Emperour in the VI. General Council Act. IV. supposes the Synods of the Lombards Slaves Frankes Gothes and Britaines to belong to the Synod of Rome and that the Council was to expect account of them from it No otherwise then to the leter of the Synod of Rome to the second Generall Council ninety Bishops of Italy and Gaul concurred according to Theodoret. And Cornelius in S. Hieromes Catalogue writ to Flavianus Bishop of Antiochia from the Synods of Rome Gaul and Africk Whereby it may appear how the Western Churches alwayes went along with that of Rome Which though it give not the Church of Rome that priviledge over the Churches of eight Dioceses which the canons of Nicaea do confirm to the Bishops of Alexandria over the Diocese of Aegypt and the Church of Antiochia over the Eastern Diocâ—ses yet necessarily argueth a singular pre-eminence in it over them all in regard whereof he is stiled Patriarch of the West during the regular Government of the Church and being so acknowledged by King James of excellent memory in his leter to the Cardinall of Perrâ—n may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church that had rather stand divided then own him in that quality But granting the Church of Rome to be regularly the seat of the chiefe Patriarch for so he is stiled in the Council of Chalcedon Act. III. so the Emperour Justine calls Hormisdas so Justinian calls the Bishop of Rome Nov. CIX And the VI Council Act. XVIII counts five seats of Patriarchs And if Gregory Epist XI 54. acknowledge Spain to have no Patriarch and Innocent III. C. grave de Praeb dignit C. antiqua de Privil count but four it is because they would make the Pope more
then a Patriarch it will neverthelesse be questionable how faâ—re it injoyes the same rights throughout the West or rather unquestionable that he did noâ— consecrate all the â—iâ—â—ops of the West as he of Alexandria did all the Bishops of Egypt and he of Antiochia all those of the Eastern Diocese On the other side it will be unquestionable that all causes that conceâ—n the whole Church are to resort to it And if Innocent I. mean none but those when he sayes that they are excepted from the Canon of Nicaea that forbids appeals Epist ad Victricium Rothâ—m He sayes nothing but that which the constitution of the Church justifies Bâ—t the cases produced before out of S. Cypriane show that there was muâ—h lâ—ft for custoâ—â— to determine Nay rules of discipline which in my opinon the good of the whole Church then requirâ—d that they should be common to all the West â—re of this rank noâ— could any of then ever oblige the West without the Bishop of Rome But that he alone should give rules to ty all the West may have had a regular beginning from voluntary references of Himerius Bishop of Farracona in Spain to Syricius of Exuperius Bishop of Tolouse and Victricius of Roven to Innocentius but argues not that it is the originall right of that Church But that it hath increased by custome to that height as to help to make up a claime for that infinite power which I deny in stead of that regular Power which I acknowledge Judge now by reason supposing the obligation upon all of holding unity in the Church and the dependance of Churches the mean to compass it For this will oblige us to part here with the Parallel of the Empire which having a Soveraign upon earth will require the Ministers of thereof immediate or subordinate to be of equall power in equall rights Praefects Lieurenants and Governours But the Head of the Church being in heaven and his Body on earth being to be maintained in Unity by an Aristocraty of Superiours and Inferiours whither was it according to the intent of those who ordered the pre-eminence of greater Churches thâ—t that the Church of the greatest City should be equall in power to the head Churches of o her Dioceses Or that the general reason should take place between them all an eminence of power following their precedence in ranck So that whensoever it become requisite to limite this generality by positive constitutions the pre-eminence of right to fall upon one exclusively to oâ—hers Surely though we suppose that all Christendom of their free consent agreed in this Order yet must we needs argue from the uniformity of it that it must needs come froâ— the ground setled by the Apostles For it is manifest that the rights of the head Churches of Provinces had a beginning beyond the memory of all records of the Church which testifie the being of them at the time of all businesse which they relate That the head Churches of Diocesses were not advanced in a moment by the act of the Empiâ—e but moulded asore as â—t were and prepared to receiveâ— that impression of regular eminence over inferiouâ— Churches which the act of the State should stampe the Cities with over inâ—â—riour Cities yet cannot be maintained that the greatest respect was and is by the Apostles act to be given to the greatest Churches that is the Churches of greaâ—est Cities and yet that the â—riâ—â—ledges necessarily accruing by positive constitution might as justly have been placed upon the head Church of any Diocess as upon that of Rome I know I have no thanks for this of the Romanists for as S. Paul sâ—yes How shall I serve God and please men both in such a difference as this but seeing the canon of Nicaea doth necessarily confine the Church of Rome to a regular Power is it not a great signe of truth that those things which appear in the proceedings of the Church do concur to evidence a ground for the Rule of it inferring that pre-eminence which the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia cannot have but the beginning of the canon establishing ancient custome settleth Let us see some of those proceedings After the Council of Nicaea the Arians having Eusâ—bius of Nicomedia for their Head desire to be heard at Rome by Pope Julius in Council concerning their proceedings against Athanasius Here shall I believe as some learned men conjecture that Pope Julius â—s meerly an Arbitratoâ— named by one part y whom the other could not refuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot considering that their hope being to winne themselves credit by his sentence I must needs think that they addresse themselves to him by whose sentence they might hope to draw the greatest prejudice on their own side It cannot be denyed indeed that whereas in a case of that moment the last resort is necessarily to the whole Church whither in council or by reference by referring themselves they brought upon their cause that prejudice which necessarily lights upon all those that renounce the award of the Arbitrators whom they have referred themselves to in case they stand not to the sencentence But though they had not been chargeable with this had they not referred themselves yet must they needs have been judged by the Bishop of Rome among the rest of the Church and in the first place and his sentence must needs weigh more towards the sentence of the whole Church then the sentence of any other Arbitrator could have done For let me ask in the mean time is this an appeal to Pope Julius or to him and his Council let the sequeâ—e judge For he that condemns the Arians for not appearing at the Council which they had occasioned he that condemns the Council of Antiochia at the dedication of the golden Church presently after where they were present for revereing the Creed of Nicaea and condemning S. Athanasius notwithstanding the sentence of Julius and his Council necessarily shows us that they were not quite out of their wits to bestow so much pains for procuring a decree at the Conncil of Antiochia that must have been void ipso facto because the mater had been sentenced at Rome that is in the last resort afore Therefore I coneive Julius had right to complain that they took upon them to regulate the Churches without him nor can I much blame Socrates or Sâ—zomenus in justifying his complaint Because Athanasius his cause as well as the Creed of Nicaea concerned the whole Church And for them to condemn him whom Julius and his Council held at the instance of the Arians had justified was to make a breach in the Church though at present we say nothing of the Faith Neither had they reason to alledge the good they had done the Church of Rome by their compliance in the cause of Novatianus or to expect the like from Julius in a cause of
the like moment because of the sentence of the Nicenâ— Council already past in the main ground of the cause and because of the sentence of the Synod of Rome past in the cause Now when this difference comes afterwards to be tried by a General Council at Sardica shall this trial inferre the infinite Power of the Pope or the regular Power of a General Council For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both Emperours Constantius and Constans out of the whole Empire When the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Philippopolis the whole Power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the success sufficiently showeth that it did not so prevail For many a Council might then have been spared The soveraign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whither for the West which it represented or for the whole which it had right to conclude not having caused the breach shall I conceive to be forged because they are so aspersed having been acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionysius Exigâ—us added by the Eastern Church to their Canon Law Or shall I not ask what pretense there could be to settle appeals from other parts to Rome rather then from Rome to other parts had not a pre-eminence of Power and not onely a precedence of rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome But though I think my self bound to acknowledge that such Canons were made by the Council at Sardica yet not that they took effect by the act of it The Canons of Councils had not effect as I said afore till received The troubles that succeeded might well hinder the admitting of them into practice And that this exception is not for nothing I appeal to all that shall but consider that the Canons of the Council of Antiochia which the Eastern Bishops at Sardica stood for made part of the Code of the whole Church which the Council of Chalcedon owned The Canon of Sardica being no part of it till after times And this is the point upon which the dispute between the Pope and the Churches of Africk about appeals most depends The case that brought it to issue was the case of Apiarius a Priest onely that appealed to Rome The Popes Legates pretended that appeals to Rome were settled by the Council of Nicaea The Churches of Africk finding no such Canon of Nicaea in their records desire that recourse might be had to Alexandria and Constantinople for the true Copies The true Copies import no such thing but it is alleged and it is reason it should be alleged that the appeals of Bishops are setled by the Canons of the Council of Sardica the very terms whereof are couched in the instructions to the Council of Africk The Council of Sardica was not the Council of Nicaea but the acts of it were done by those who pretended to maâ—ntain it Whither it were justly done or imported an intent of imposture to challenge the authority of the Canons of Nicaea for the Canons of it I dispute not But had the case in question been the case of a Bishop as it was onely the case of a Priest what could the Churches of Africk have alledged why they should not be tyed by the Canons of Sardica who acknowledged themselves tyed by the Canons of Nicaea For there was onely the Bishop of Carthage present at the Council of Nicaea but there was six and thirty Africane Bishops at the Council of Sardica enow to represent all the Diocese of Africk and to tie those whom they represented What could they alledge but the inexecution of the Council of Sardica Or what greater evidence could they alledge for the inexecution of it then that there was no Copy of any such Canon in the records of all their Churches Or how could the Pope desire a fairer pretense for the execution of it for the future then the concurrence of the Africanâ— Churches by so many Bishops For though the Council of Sardica is quoted in that which is called the VI Council of Carthage yet the whole issue of the businesse was onely whither they were Nicâ—ne Canons that were alleged or not and when it appeared that they were not the dispute was at an end and the Africane Synode by the leter extant in the Africane Code desires the Pope to stand to terms of the Nicene Canons Therefore it is clearly a fault in the Copy that the Council of Sardica is named which could not be pleaded because all knew that it was not in force as the Council of Nicaea was in the Churches of Africk So that the act of the Council of Sardica necessarily presupposeth that the Church of Rome was effectually acknowledged the prime Church of the West and by consequence of all Churches because it setleth the right of appeals upon it before other Churches in certain causes though it appear not what effect it took unlesse you allow the conjecture which I have to propose Within a few years after this contest there appears a standing Commission of the Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their standing Lieutenants in Illyricum mentioned in the leter of Pope Leo to Anastasins of Thessalonica as derived from their predecessors Had the Bishop of Rome been no more then the Bishop of Thessalonica how came this to be his Lieutenant rather then on the contrary And truly where those priviledges of the Church of Rome over the Churches of Illyricum began whereby the Popes had made the Bishops of Thessalonica their standing Legates appears not by the records of the Church So that it is as free for me to conjecture that they come from the Council of Sardica as for others to conjecture otherwise For it is not unreasonable to think that it might take effect upon the place where it was made with fuller consent of the Bishops of that Diocese present in greater numbers then strangers though scarce known in Africk after some LXX years But at such time as Rome disputed with Africk about appeals and injoyed regular priviledges in Illyricum can the Church of Milane or any Church of Spain or Gaul or Britaine be thought parallel to it From this time the rescripts of the Popes are extant unforged and directed to divers prime Churches of Gaul and Spain And the Heads of them were added by Dionysius Exiguâ—s about DXXX unto that collection of Canons which what force it had in the Western Church appears in that Cresconius abridging the Canons which the African Church used referrs them to the Heads which he follows both beginning at Syricius Cresconius ending at Gelasius And the Copies of Dionysius his Collection that now are
extant in the Libraries of France have at the beginning a leter whereby Pope Adriane I directs it to Charles the Great As you may see in Sirmondus his Councils Tomo II. ad annum DCCLXXXVII This subordination being nothing but the limiting of the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome in the common concernments of the Western Church suffers not any terms of equality betwixt them unlesse we could think that they who received such instructions from Rome did send the like to Rome in the like case Nor yet to attribute the inequality to the rescript of Valentinian the III. in favour of Pope Leo against the Bishop of Arles though that might be and was without doubt a goodly pretense for the Popes to inhanse their priviledges while the Empire stood and when it was fallen to maintain them upon the title of ancient custome Besides the greatness of the City Rome in comparison of any City of Gaul or Spain or Britain besides the pre-eminence of S. Peter it is to be considered that Innocent I. Pope affirmeth all the Churches of Italy Gaul Spain Africk Sicily and the Isles that lie between to have been founded by those who were ordained by S. Peter and his successors And therefore that they ought to follow the order of the Church of Rome Epist ad Decentium For with him agreeth herein as for Africk Tertulliane de Praescript cap. XXXVI and S. Gregory lib. VII Indict I. Epist XXXII Nor do I think that Cyprian meant any thing else when he describes the Church of Rome to be the Church undâ— unita Sacerdotalis exorta est â— From whence the unity of the Priesthood had the rise to wit in Africk Of Gaul and Spain I perceive no question is made And he that will free the beginning of Christianity in Britaine from fables must acknowledge that as it is agreed among men of learning that it was first planted from Gaul so from thence also it must have received Christianity Of Illyricum the same cannot be said Nor do I find any title for the Jurisdiction of Rome over it more ancient then the division of the Empire among the Sons of Constantine For the Council of Sardica being assembled upon this account by both Emperours and parted in two the Eastern Bishops of it plead that it was a Novelty which the ancient custome of the Church abhorrs that the East should be judged by the West And Constantius writes to the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum that no reason would indure them to decree any thing of the Eastern Bishops both in the fragments of S. Hilary Which as it is constitutes the regular but destroyes the infinite power of the Pope because it concludes no man without the Synode to which he belongs so it shows no ancient custome by which Illyricum should belong to the West And Palladius an Arian Bishop in the Council of Aquileia under S. Ambrose excepting that he was not to be sentenced without the Eastern Bishops who had been writ to to come S. Ambrose answers that knowing the custome that the Synode of the East should be held in the East of the West in the West they were not come intimating that Palladius in the mean time must look to be judged by the Synode of the West leaving those of the East to take their course in a cause of common concernment Here is then a reason why Illyricum should belong to the Western Church Whither or no the holding of the Council of Sardica in Illyricum might occasion the Canons thereof to take place in Illyricum which came not to effect in Africk let those who havâ— the skill judge I see the act of Pope Hormisda making the Bishops of Tarracona and Sevile his Lieutenants Epist XXIV and XXVI is attributed to the Canon of Sardica which I have showed was not known in Africk about a hundred years fore Therefore let those that have skill judge I am willing to allow a better reason for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome over Illyricum when I shall see it rendred In the mean time the rescript of the Popes are extant evidencing the resort from Illyricum to Rome no otherwise then from Gaul or from Spain or from Africk What shall we say of Britaine For all this while I show that the Church of Rome cannot be reduced to the rank of the Head Churches of Dioceses though the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antiochia were onely Heads of one Diocese They knew Pope Caelestine when he joyned with the Synode of Gaul to send Germanus and Lupus to deliver them from Pelagianism as well as Ireland a British Isle knew him when he sent first Palladius and then S. Patrick with effect to convert it S. Hilary of Tours having sent S. Keby afore to no great purâ—ose They knew the Pope when they aâ—mitted that order for keeping of Easter which afterwards they would not part with when S. Austine demanded it for a mark of subjection at their hands For it appeares by my L. Priâ—â—â—â—s Antiquities that the rule which they held was the same which the Church of Rome had first imbraced Onely whereas in process of time a fault of two days was discovered in it which Severus Sulpitius in Gaul is said to have mended They having received it with this amendment would not part with it when Austine demanded it of them for a mark of subjection to his Bishoprick This you may see in those Collections pag. 925 They knew him when S. David sent the Synodes which he had held against the Pelagians to Rome for the approbation of the Pope When S. Kentigerne went to Rome to purge the irregularity which he was under by being ordained Bishop of Glâ—sâ—ow by one Bishop In fine they knew him in all the corresponce which they had with their fellow British Churches in France who exercised daily communion with Rome And therefore when they say they knew him not we are to understand by a figure of speech that they knew him not to the purpose that was demanded â—o as to be subject to the new Bishop of Britaine Which the Canon of the Apostles providing that every Nation should have their own Bishop inabled them to refuse And the just jealousie they had that the admitting of him might be a snare to their civil freedom obliged them to refuse For when they say they are ready to acknowledge the Pope as brotherly love requires they may well be thought to acknowledge him with that Canonicall respect which ancient custome required without which brotherly love subsisteth not among Christians But I must come to the priviledges of Constantinople begun by the Canon of the second General Council established by the fourth in the last Canon which the Popes to this day acknowledge not though the effect of it hath suffered no interruption by their disowning of it I know not how I should give a clearer evidence of the ground I propose for the pre-eminence of Churches then the alteration which succeeded
upon the erecting of Constantinople into the second Head of the Empire For within fifty years the Council of the East being held there makes it the second Church and head Church of Thrace Diocese which the Chalcedon Council extends to the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus exalting it so â—arre above Alexandria and Antiochia as might seem afarr of to call for a kind of subjection at their hands If this be rightfully done what shall hinder the whole Church to dispose of the superiority of Churches when the greatnesse of their Cities makes it appear that the dependence of the Churches of less Cities upon them is for the Unity of the whole in the exercise of true Christianity And what can be said why it should not be right for the East to advance Constantinople to the next to Rome the same reason being visible in it for which Rome had the first place from the beginning It is true whereas Rome was content to take no noâ—ice of the Canon of Constantinople the Legates of Pope Leo present at Chalcedon and inforced either to admit or disclaim it protested against iâ— But upon what ground can he who by being part of the Council concluâ—es himself by the vote of it refuse his concurrence to that which he alone likes not Or to what effect is that disowned which takes place without him who protests against it unless it be to set up a monument of half the Church disowning the infinite power of the Pope the other halfe not pleading it but onely Canonicall pre-eminences by the Council of Nicaea I suppose indeed the Pope had something else to fear For Illyricum being so much nearâ—r Constantinople then Rome there was always pretense of reason to subject it as Asia and Ponâ—us â—o Constantinople to the prejudice of those pre-eminences which Rome injoyed there Especially since Illyricum was surrendred by Valentinian III upon the mariage of his Sister to Theodosius the younger as that learned Gentleman John Marsham hath observed and thenceforth become part of the Eastern Empire For hereupon followed the Law omni Innovatione cessante still extant in the Code requiring the Bishops of Illyricum to give account to Constantinople of all maters that should pass Besides had the Empire continued in force in Italy why might not Constantinople in time have pretended to the first place Rome being no more the prime City and yet still of the Empire And therefore Pope Leo as wiâ—e for the privileges of his Church as stout for the Faith did his own business when hee pleaded the Canon of Nicaea and the second place for Alexandria And whatsoever contests passed afterwards between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople the privileges of Rome in Illâ—ricum continued till the time that Gregory the Second with-drew his City from the obedience of the Empire pretending his Soveraign to be an Heretick for destroying of Images I said afore in the first Book that others relate this otherwise And Anasâ—aâ—iâ—s in the lives of Gregory II and III. owns no more but that they exâ—ommunicated the Emperors which notwithstanding occasioned the Italians to â—all from the Empire But hereupon the Empeâ—oâ— commands not onely Illyricum but Sicily and that part of Italy which conâ—â—nued subject to the Empire to resort to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Constantinople and as in case of such jealousie was necessarily to be obeyed Hereupon Pope Adrian in his Apology for Images to Charles the Great complains that they deprived the Church oâ— Rome of the Diocese together with the patriâ—ony which it held in it when they put down Images and had given no answer from that time And Nicolas I. Epist â— revives the claime Which with the rescripts of the Popes between concerning Illyricum as well as the rest of the West see also the life of Hadriane II in Anastasius and much more that might be added shows that this was the state of the Church till that time During the time that Rome on one side stood upon these terms which Constantinople on the other â—â—de was continually harassed by the Lombards who had no reason to confide in it we see because they were not long after destroyed by it there is no marvail if Milane head of the Lombards and Ravenna head of the Exarchate that is of the Dominion that was governed by the Emperors Lieutenant there resident did by the Secular Power of their Cities set up themselves to contest with the Pope about several privileges of their Churches For alass what can this signifie of competition for the Primacy with Rome if wee compare the respect of Milane or Ravenna with that which Rome hath â—ound among other Churches in the concernments of the whole Therefore I will mention here onely one action more carried through in so high a tune by Gâ—lasius and other active Popes that it is much insisted upon by those who would plead for the Popes infinite Power if they durst because they would not have it regular which is the same for what bounds can that Power have that acknowleges no Rule to limit it It is that troublesom business that â—ell out in Egypt about the Council of Chalcedon when John of Alexandria having fallen under the jealousie of the Emperor and Acacius of Constantinople goes to Rome with Leters from Antiochia to complain of the intruding of Petrus Mongus into his Sea Who being an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon but pretending fair to promote those means by which the Emperor Zeâ—o and Acacius pretended to re-unite Aegypt to the Church having never received that Council was thereupon received into communion by Acacius The Rule of the Church being undispensable whosoever communicated with Hereticks to stand for an Heretick to the Church whatsoever hee believe otherwise This cause having bred a world of trouble for many years the Popes never condescended to be re-united in Communion to the East till it was granted that all the Bishops of Constantinople since Acacius though they had professed the true Faith and some of them suffred for it should be condemned as Hereticks by raising names out of that list in which the godly Bishops were remembred at celebrating the Eucharist Though the reason why they had continued communion with Hereticks was onely for fear of making the breaches of the Church wider and more incurable Here it may seem to have been the Power of the Pope that brought even the second person of the Church to the justice of the Canon so much more evident by how much there was lesse reason to insist upon the rigor of the Canon in comparison to the end to which it was subordinate the unity of the whole Yet to him that reasons aright it will easily appear that it was no duty that either the Emperors or the Bishops of Constantinople owed the Popes that made them submit to the Canon but the obligation they had to the Unity of the Church for the maintenance whereof the Canon was provided And that Zeno taking the
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
his time which cannot be true otherwise A thing to be wondered at that so knowing a man should look so farr for a reason evidently false having a true one in the text of Bede before his eyes For what is more evident than that the English Bishops of Austines plantation had their Ordination from him not from any Priests But if from him then from one Bishop which was not regular The Nicene Canon requiring the Representatives of the Province the Apostles Canon two at least if not three Whether S. Gregory and his Successors intended that their Power giving Austine his Commission should supply the formality of the Canon or supposed that the Welsh Bishops should joyn with him which afterwards upon the difference that fell out between them either they would not grant or hee would not desire the consecration of the Bishops of that plantation must needs be irregular because it came from Austine alone Nor need wee any other reason why Wilfride went for his consecration into France as the same Bede relateth For that there was the same irregularity also among the Welsh Bishops appears by S. Kentigern who went to Rome to purge it as his life relateth And therefore though Wine having been regularly ordained in France as Malmsbury saith de Gestis Poutif II. joyned with him two Welsh Bishops to consecrate regularly yet their regularity which might be in the consecrating of the said Bishops might alâ—o move Wilfride rather to go into France than to rest content vvith the same But that Niniane being a Welsh Bishop at such time as the Welsh had other Bishops should be ordained by Priests because a vvritten Copy Hist Duâ—â—lm in Biblioth Coton sayes after his time that Galloway had yet no Bishop is a conjecture too slight for a man of that knovvledg For there is appearance enough that under the Welsh the Sea vvas trâ—nslated to Glascow for Kentigern after Niniane And that Plecthelm vvas first Bishop of Galloway under the Saxons after that the Kingdom of Cumberland vvas become English Of the â—uldei in Scotland vvhatsoever is said before the Plantation of S. Columb I challenge â—or a meer fable After it though Bede saith that his Monastery after an unuâ—â—â—l vvay ruled even thâ— Bishops yet vvhere there vvere Bishops no reason can presume that their authority did not ordain though they thought fit that the knovvledg of the Monastery vvhence they came should direct vvhom And therefore vvhatsoever the rights of these Culdei in Scotland might aftervvards be it cannot vvay a sâ—ravvâ—â—â—rds the cause of Episcopacy because never extant in the Church of Scotland but undâ—r it They that shall peruse vvhat the late Lord Pâ—imate hath vvritten in his antiquities of the British Churches and from his infoâ—mation Sir H. Spelman in his Glossâ—ry vvill not allovv them to be any other than Câ—nons that vvâ—re to attâ—nd upon the service of God in the Church Which whether or no before the division of Dioceses in Scotland they might have that right in advanâ—ing of Bishops to all Seas which the Clergy of every Churâ—h had in respâ—ct to their own Church I leave to their antiquaries to determine The extrâ—cts of Philostorgius I give more credit to than to any thing that hath been said of the Scottish Culdei And they I admit relate II. 5. that the â—oâ—â—es who dwelt on the North of the Black Sea had Christianity some LXX years before Ulphilas was made their Bishop For having caried â—ome of the Clergy captives in an inrode they were by them taught Christianity saith Philostorgius But they might have Priests ordained by the next Bishops all having that power in that case Or they might have other Bishops before Theophilus whom the Ecclesiastical Histories reckon at the Council of Nicaea before Ulphilas The want of records will not evidence that those Clergy did all acts of Ecclesiassical power before or made themselves Bishops to do what themselves could not do that is give them the power which they had not themselves I am secure of all that can be said from the state of rural Bishops called Chorepiscopi in the ancient Church Not doubting that any Bishop may communicate any part of his power within his own Church the rule and custom of the whole Church inabling him to do it Socrates and Sozomenus testifie that whereas generally there were no Bishops but in Cities in Cyprus they were settled in Boroughs I have elâ—where observed the same in Africk and Ireland Either Cities were something else there than in other Countries or else the number of Cities could not be so great as the number of Churches in the numerous Africâ—ne Synods and when S. Patrick sounded as many Churches in Ireland as there are dayes in the year Was this any breach upon S. Pauls rule or practice setling Churches in Cities divide a Province or Soveraignty into more or fewer Churches it wayes the same to the whole Church not according to the number of those that vote in their own Synods Unless the Council of Trent could oblige Christendom by a plurality of them that voted there One Diocese of Lincoln will better allow half a douzain rural Bishops to be cut out of it than many Cities in some parts can have Bishops In a word the Rule of the Church supposeth the act of some State which it cannot regulate And is it then strange supposing the superiority of Bishops so much differing in Jurisdiction though for Order the same as I have said that some of them should have a Bishop under him that is answerable to him immediately and to the Synod of the Province by him though according to the Canons of the same with power to Ordain Priests according as the said Synods should allow or withdraw it I will say further that supposing all that I have said of the Hierarchy to be an Ordinance of the Apostles because received by all to be a meer imagination of mine own but granting the unity of the Church to be of Gods Law and the means of maintaining it self to be the consent of the Church and this consent executed by the establishment of Episopacy through the whole Church I can by no means excuse those that go about to put it down from being Schismaticks Whither upon an erroneous conscience they imagine that to be a transgression of Gods Law which the whole Church for so many ages imbracing maketh evident to be according to Gods Law Or whether God having commanded the unity of his Church and his Church having introduced it for a mean to preserve that unity they think it lawfull for themselves to refuse it not believing it to be against Gods Law and therefore within the power of the Church to appoint it For whatsoever can be said of the several customes which severall Churches allowed cannot take place in that which is supposed to be setled and received in all Churches Not is it possible that the Church should continue one as a visible Society and Body
which they hear from those that do not profess to Preach within those bounds who can deny that they are guilty to their own death What those bounds are I shall say by and by In the mean time let them take heed whose neglect of the written word or whose zeal to preaching shuts the Scriptures out the Church that they contribute not to the bringing in of the secret and invisible Word of the Enthusiasts It is now no dainty to hear that the word which we have written in our Bibles is not the Word that saveth but that which is secretly and invisibly spoken to us within by Gods Spirit And whosoever attributeth the reverence due to Gods word to any such dictate without dependence upon the Scriptures that is deriving the same from the Scripture by those means which God hath allowed us for the understanding of them according to the premises what shall hinder him to preferre the dictate of his own Spirit under pretense of Gods before that which he admitteth to come from Gods Spirit For he who admitteth the greater contradiction of two parallel Soveraigns why should he not admit a less that the written word is not Gods word in competition with the dictate of his own Spirit when there is so easie a cloke of expounding the written word though against all reason and rule of expounding it yet so as to submit even the substance of Christianty to the dictate of a private spirit We have an example for it in the impostures of Mahomet For doth not the Alcoran acknowledge both our Lord Christ and Moses true Prophets of God besides all other attributes yet in as much as it pretendeth the Spirit given to Mahomet in such a degree as to controle them both it smoothes the way to the renouncing of Christianity when the power of the sword fell out on the side of it Simon Magus and his followers the Gnosticks might have done the like had the like power been on their side as the Manichees did in part if those things be true that we read in Cedronus of a party of them possessed of the Power of the Sword about the parts of Armenia all upon pretense of higher revelations then were granted to the Apostles The same is alleged against the Paraclete of Montanus and perhaps his followers being disowned by the Church might fall to such extremities but at the beginning it doth not appear that he pretended any more then to introduce certain strict orders into the Church as injoyned by his Spirit and those of his fellow Prophets which it was not expedient for the Church to undertake and being so it was requisite for him to conform unto the Church any pretense of the Spirit notwithstanding but otherwise were no way destructive to Christianity Suppose then the reading of the Scriptures to be one of those offices for the which the Church is to assemble the order of reading them which is that which remains is a thing to subject so common reason that there need not much dispute about it If we look upon Tertullianes or before him Justin Martyrs Apologies for the Christians there will appear no more then this that every Church that is every Body of Christians under one Bishop did prescribe themselves that order for reading the Scriptures in the Church which they found requisite And if that primitive simplicity which the Christianity under persecution was managed with had continued what fault could have been found with it But when the World was come into the Church which he that injoyes his right senses will not believe did come into it all with the like affections to the professions which they undertook it was in vain to hope that differences would not rise or might not rise about this as well as other points in which the exercise of Christianity consisted Differences arising the greater authority is that to which the ending of them obliges all men to have recourse The greater authority you have seen is that of the greatest Churches whither in Synods or not requiring Synods to oblige the less by reason of the exigence or reasonableness of the case The order of reading the Scriptures and of singing or saying the Psalms and Hymns of Gods praises being grounded upon no other reason nor tending to any other end then that of exercising and improving the Christianity of Gods people I need noâ— dispute that the Order which the power of the Church of Rome hâ—d introduced here as well in the rest of the West was such as made the Assemblies of the Church fruitlesse to that purpose For what could those shreds of Psalms and Lessonâ— which that order prescribeth contribute that might be considerable to that purpose Nor need I argue how considerable the order of the Church of England is to the same For to finish the Psalter once a year the New Testament thrice a year the Old once besides for reverence to the ancient Ordinance of the Church another Order for beginning the Prophet Esay at Advent and Genesis at Septuagesima to be prosecuted on Festival days is an Order from which the Church hath reason to expect a good effect in the instruction of Gods people And the interweaving of the Lessons with Hymns as it is agreeable to the rules and the practice of the ancient Church so it is in reason a fit mean to preserve attention and quicken devotion in them who use it In the mean time supposing there were considerable objections to be made against this or that order yet Order in generall being a thing so requisite to the preservation of Unity in the Body of the Church there is no reason to be given why any body should be admitted to dispute any Order received that cannot advance another Order which he can pretend to be more effectual to the purpose in which the parties must needs agree I am here to answer that part of the question concerning the Canon of Scripture which I said in the first book concerneth the Law not the faith of the Church whither the reading of those Scriptures which S. Jerome calls Apocryphall Ruffinus upon the Creed Ecclesiasticall for part of the Church office be for the ediâ—ication of the Church or not And a few words shall serve me to answer it with The very name of Ecclesiastical serves him that admits the Church to be one Body the unity whereof requires some uniformity in the order of those offices the communion whereof is one part of the end for which it subsisteth For it is manifest that the whole Church hath frequented the reading of them and that they are called Ecclesiastical for no other reason but because the reading of them hath been frequented by the Church in the Church And whosoever makes this any title of separation from the Church of Rome will make his Title Schismatical separating for that which is common to the present Church of Rome with the whole Church But because the repute of the Church is so slight
Hereticks Of those whose Baptism S. Cyprian excepts against Epist ad Jubaianum it is manifest that the Church voiding the baptism of the Samosatenians by the Canon of Nicaea the baptism of other Hereticks by the Canons of Arles and Laodicea must needs make void the baptisms of the greatest part being evidently further removed from the truth which Christianity professeth than those whose baptism the said Canons disallow And though it is admitted according to the dictates of the School that these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost contain a sufficient form of this Sacrament Yet that holdeth upon supposition that they who use it do admit the true sense of this word I baptize intending thereby to make him a Christian that is to oblige him to the profession of Christianity whom they baptize Which what reason can any man have to presume of in behalf of those who renounce their baptism once received in the Church of England to be baptized again For all reason of charitable presumptions ceaseth in respect of those who root up the ground thereof by Schism and by departing from the Unity of the Church And besides that wee do not see them declare any profession at all according to which they oblige themselves either to believe or live which is reason enough to oblige others not to take them for Christians not demanding to be taken for Christians by professing themselves Christians wee see the world over-spread with the vermine of the Enthusiasts who accepting of the Scriptures for Gods word upon a perswasion of the dictate of Gods Spirit not supposing the reason for which they are Christians do consequently believe as much in the dictates of the same that are not grounded upon the Word of God as upon those that are So that the imbracing of the Scriptures makes them no more Christians than Mahomets acknowledging Moses and Christ in the Alcoran makes him a Christian For whosoever is perswaded that hee hath the Spirit of God not supposing that it is given him in consideration that hee professeth Christianity supposing therefore the truth thereof in order of reason before hee receive the Spirit may as well as Mahomet in the Alcoran frame both the Old and New Testament to whatsoever sense his imagination which hee takes for Gods Spirit shall dictate This reason why it is necessary to follow the forms which the Church prescribes is more constraining in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist as more nearly concerning the Christianity and salvation of Christians But yet it takes place also in the rest of those Offices whereby the Church pretends to conduct particular Christians in the way to life everlasting Hee that supposes that which I have proved how necessary it is that every sheep of the flock should acknowledg the common Pastor of his Church that the Pastor should acknowledg his flock upon notice of that Christianity which every one of them in particular professeth though hee may acknowledg that originally there is no cause why every Bishop should not prescribe himself the form of it in his own Church yet supposing that experience hath made it appear requisite for the preservation of Unity by Uniformity that the same form should be used must needs finde it requisite that it be prescribed by a Synod greater or less At such time as publick Penance was practiced in the Church when the Penitents were dismissed before the Eucharist with the Blessing and Prayers of the Church can it seem reasonable to any man that any Prayers should be used in celebrating an action of that consequence but those which the like authority prescribeth So much the more if it be found requisite that the practice of private Penance and of the inner Court of the Conscience be maintained in the Church For how should it be fit that every Priest that is trusted with the Power of the Keyes in this Court should exercice it in that form which his private fansy shall dictate Of Ordinations I say the same as of Confirmations Of the Visitation of the Sick and of Mariage as of Penance Onely considering that it is not likely that the reason whereupon the celebration of Mariage is an Office of the Church deriving from those limitations which the precept of our Lord hath fastned upon the Mariage of Christians should be so well understood by all that are to solemnize Matrimony as to do their Office both so as the validity of the contract and so as the performance of that Office which the parties undertake doth require In fine having showed that the Service of God upon the Regular Hours of the day is a Custom both grounded upon the Scripture and tending to the maintenance and advancement of Christian Piety It remains that I say that the form and measure of that devotion which all estates are to offer to God at those hours cannot otherwise be limited to the edification of all than by the determination of the Church They that please themselves with that monstrous imagination that no Christian is to be taught what or how to pray till hee finde himself inabled by the Spirit of God moving him to pray will easily finde that they can never induce the greater part of Christians to think themselves capable of discharging themselves to God in so high an Office as the sense of their Christianity requires They that observe the performance of those who take it upon them shall finde them sacrifice to God that which his Law forbiddeth the mater of their Prayers not consisting with our common Christianity For of a truth it is utterly unreasonable to imagine that God should grant inspirations of the Holy Ghost for such purposes as our common Christianity furnisheth And therefore the consequences of so false a presumption must be either ridiculous or pernicious Now if any man say that hee admits not the premises upon which I inferr these consequences it remaines that the dispute rest upon those premises and come not to these consequences Onely let him take notice that I have showed him the true consequences of my own premises which hee must reprove as inconsistent with Christianity if hee take upon him to blame the premises for any fault that hee findeth with their true consequences And to say truth as the substance and mater of Christianity is concerned in all these Offices though in some more in some less and by consequence in the form of celebrating them So the Unity of the Church is generally concerned in the form of celebrating them all in as much as any difference insisted upon as necessary and not so admitted by others is in point of fact a just occasion of division in the Church And therefore all little disputes of these particulars necessarily resort to the general Whether God hath commanded the Unity of the Church in the external communion of the members thereof or not Which having concluded by the premises I conceive I have founded
to you to be the commandements of the Lord. Which is to say that all even Prophets are to be subject to the Apostles by consequence to none but them who have received commission from the Apostles For howshal any order he setled to maintain unity in the communion of Gods service upon any other principle but that upon which the Coirnthians are obliged to rest in this which therefore being setled by order from the apostles is from thencforth trusted with the teaching of Gods people and no man further then he is trusted by the same Neither is it any marvaile that in the Church of England after orders confirmed after possession of a Church license of preaching is granted by the Bishop Because there are divers offices as well concerning the cure of soules as the service of God in the Church to which men may be appointed by the Lawes of the Church who are not to be trusted with Preaching even to their own people but upon expresse submission to the Bishops correction in behalfe of his Church For if sufficient power be reserved the Bishop to provide for his flock it will be in him to provide instruction for them by such persons as he shall think fit to trust and if it be not in him so to doe the fault is in the Lawes abridging his power of making a cheerfull account to God for his people Howsoever from hence it may appeare how ridiculous a thing it is to judge of the instruction a Bishop affords his flock by the sermons himselfe preaches unlesse it could be thought that his lungs and sides could reach all his people For his fidelity in trusting such persons as are to be trusted with teaching his people and his care in watching over the performance of their trust extendeth alike to all and maketh his Clergy his instruments in feeding his flock And whatsoever may have decayed in this Order through the Church of England the restoring thereof by wholsom Lawes aswell Ecclesiastcall as Civill had been and is the Reformation of Christianity not the rooting up of the very foundations of the Church out of zeale to exirtpate the order of Bishops And since the licentiousnesse of preaching what any man can make of the Bible hath made so faire a way for so few years to the rooting up of Christianity with the Church what will there be to secure the consciences of Gods people that they may safely go to Church and trust their soules with the means of salvation that are there to be found but the restoring of Gods Church That is to say of that authority which he by his Apostles hath provided for the determining of all things concerning his publike service supposing the profession of that faith which the whole Church hath maintained from the beginning as received from our Lord by his Apostles Which if it be true the same reason will oblige all men to provide the meanes of salvation for themselves that is to follow them of their owne choice without direction or constraint of the Lawes in the meane time I doe not conceive it becomes me to say what ought to be as I conceive it behoves me to say what ought not to be This I will say having proved that the prayses of God and Prayers much more the Eucharist are principal in comparison of preaching which is subordinate That the assemblies of Gods people ought to be more frequent for them then they can be for heareing of Sermons as I have showed by the premises S. Paul commands to pray continually and David saith the praises of God shall be alwaies in his mouth not expressing the assemblies of Gods people but inferring that which I have said of the dayly service of God in publick in my book of the assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII I maintain there is no ground no precept no example no practise of dayly preaching like this for daily prayers which if it be true the confining of assemblies to sermons is to Gods disservice It will be said that S. Paul 1 Tim. IV. 2. Thus exhorteth Preach the word be instant in season out of season examine rebuke exhort with all long suffering and meeknesse And it is as easily answered that here is nothing to the purpose Instance in the preaching of the word refers to unbelievers To induce them to be Christians though out of season is alwaies seasonable Long-suffering and meeknesse in examining rebuking exhorting of Christians privately may be publikely if not according to order must needs be unseasonable Men seeme to imagin that there were Pulpits and Churches and audiences ready to heare the Apostles preach before men were Christians When they were they shall find that meanes of meeting was provided by Christian people according to their duty the order appointed by them and their successors That they sate upon their chaires in teaching challenging the authority by which they taught the people sometimes standing somtimes allowed to sit downe None but Deacons preached standing when the order and discipline of the primitive Church was in force To deal with those that were not Christians S. Paul must goe out into the Piazza or to the Exchange to Gentiles to do that which they did in the Synagogue or in the temple to the Jewes Acts XVII 7 11. 46. In preaching to Jewes it was their advantage to observe the orders of the Synogogue And yet he that shall peruse that which I have said in the book aforenamed shall never say that those assemblies were principally for preaching which the Apostles made use of to preach to the Synagogue When they had ordered the assemblies of Churches what have you in their writings to recommed frequent preaching but S. Pauls order in the use of these miraculous graces given the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV unlesse it be drawne into consequence that S. Paul prevailed till midnight Acts. XX. 7. as if the act of an Apostle being to depart were a precedent to the order of the Church Buâ— I have showed you in the foresaid book Chap X. that the Eucharists have a share in the use of the said graces and the worke of the said assemblies as also Hymnes of Gods praises And in â— Cor. XI you read very much of the Eucharist as also of praying Prophesying that is praysing God by Psalmes as I have said there Chap. V. without any mention of Preaching If the Doctrine of the Apostles be joyned with breaking of bread and Prayer Acts XI 42. If the Elders that laboure in the word and doctrine be preferred by S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 17. You have a solemn instruction concerning prayers and the Eucharist 1. Tim. II. 1 2. as also exhortations to frequent it Ebr. XIII 15. without any mention of preaching In fine there is nothing in the Scripture to question the ground which I setled afore As for the practice of the Church I will goe no further then Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles Cap. LIII neither commending nor blaming those that
assigned them by God to attend the resurrection in it Because our Lord being to undergoe the lot of mortals stayed till the third day in the lower parts of the earth where the soules of the dead were And though he allege for this an Apocryphall passage which he takes to be Esayes III. 23. but Jeremies IV. 39. yet saies it no more but that the Lord God of Israel remembred his dead a sleep in the delve of the Earth and went down to them to bring them the news of his saving health Of which preaching otherwise Irenaeus and Tertullian say nothing Here then to show that there is no Tradition in the Church for Limbus Patrum you have in the opinion of Irenius and Tertullian a state of coutent and joy for all righteous soules till the resurrection though within the earth for the place Where our Saviour was with them during his death But it is stil more particularly described in a fragment of a very ancient Christian who is called Josephus but is thought to be Caius that writ against the Montanists in Tertullians time The booke is mentioned by Photius XLVIII the fragment is published by Heschelius in his annotations there And there is a copy of it in the Library at Oxford a transcript whereof I have to show by the favour of the late learned Doctor Langbane The tenor of it is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a place under the Earth where light cometh not and therefore darke and assigned for soules to be guarded by Angels that distribute them their lots for a time One quarter of it is the lake of unquenchable fire which the wicked shall be thrown into at the last day when the righteous shall receive the kingdome who in the meane time are in the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but quartered a part For there is one common descent at the entrance whereof stands the Archangel with his host distributing the souls that are conducted by theire Angels the righteous to the right hand to be lighted and conducted with melody by the good Angels to the company of the righteous in a place of light and joy The wicked as prisoners with violence and shame on the left to hard by the said lake hearing the boyling of it and seeing the righteous in joy afar off and expecting as the righteous better things so they worse at the day of judgement Set aside the limiting of the place to be under the earth in what description can the scriptures better agree then in this The verses of the Sibyls libro I. conducting the three sons of Noe to Acheron in the house of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tell us that there they shall be honoured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Because they are the off spring of the blessed happy men themselves whom the Lord of Host gave a good mind and conserred counsels with them who shall be happy though they goe to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell And is not this a cleare resolution of S. Austins doubt whether Abrahams bosom belong to Hell or to Paradise Epist LVII in Psalm XXXV and whether inferi or Hell doe ever signifie a good place in the Scripture as Abrahams bosome certainely doth de Gen. ad lit XII 23 34. which he supposeth to be resolved in the negative Epist XCIX But finds no absurdity in the affirmative de Civit. XX 15. For taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely for a place invsible where the souls of good as well as bad are disposed of untill the day of judgement in which the Scriptures and the Church both agree If inferi be the Latine of it every where Inferi also must signifie such a place But taking it to signifie a place under the Earth as it is true the word Inferi signifieth who dare undertake that either the scriptures have taught or there is any tradition of the Church that the soules of the righteous till the resurrection are guarded under the Earth though the authors hitherto quoted have believed it whose opinion therefore in that point is no part of the Tradition of the Church S. Austine for certaine admitteth all but that resolving Euchirid CIIX. Tempus quod inter hominis mortem ultimam resurrectionem interpositum est animas abditis receptaculis continet sicut unaquaeque digna est vel requie vel aerumna pro eo quod sortita est in carne dum viveret The time that comes between a mans death and the last resurrection guards soules in secret receptacles as every one is worthy of rest or sorrow according to the Lot of it whilst lived in the flesh For what are these secret receptacles but the invisible place which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth Pope Pius I in his letter to Justus Bishop of Vicuna the ancientest that the latine Church hath that is unquestionable Presbyteri illi qui ab Apostolis educati usque ad nos pervenerunt a domino vocati in cubilibus aeternis clausi tenentur The ancients saith he who being bred by the Apostles were come to our time being called by the Lord are kept shut up in eternall bed-chambers to wit until the last judgement Novatianus of S. Cyprians time in his book de Trinitate I. Quae infra terram sunt neque ipsa sunt digestis ordinatis potestatibus vacua Locus enim est quo piorum impiorumque animae ducuntur futuri judicii praejudicia sentientes Nor are the parts under the Earth void of orderly disposed Powers For there is the place to which the soules of the Godly and the wicked are conducted feeling the prejudice of the judgement which is to come The same saith Origen all but the place de Principiis IV. 2. Qui de hocmundo secundum communem istam mortem recedunt pro actibus suis meritis dispensantur prâ—ut digni fuerint judicati Alii quidem in locum qui dicitur Infernus alii in sinum Abrahae per diversas mansiones Those that goe out of this world by this common death are disposed of according to theire works and deserts some into the place called Hell others into the bosome of Abraham according to severall lodgings So also in Num XXI hom XXVI S. Hilary saith the same in Psalm II. CXX For thus he writeth Exeuntes de corpore ad introitum illum regni caelestis per custodiam Domini fideles omnes reservabuntur in sinu scilicet Abrabae interim collocati quo adire impios interjectum chaos inhibet quosque introcundi rursum in regnum coelorum tempus adveniat All the faithfull going out of the body to the entrey of the heavenly kingdom shall be kept there under the Lords guard as placed for the time in Abrahams bosome whether the gulf interposed prohibits the wicked to come till the time of re entring the kingdom of heaven come againe And therefore the same he meanes when he saies in Psalmum CXXXVIII that the Law of human necessity which our Lord refused not is
those that are ordained or absolved Tertullian saith further that mariage was confirmed by an Eucharist and sealed which blessing And Clemens Alexandr Paedag. III. 1. complaining of her that wore not her owne haire that the Priest laying hands on her blessed not her but some bodies haire besides What blessing should he speak of but the blessing of mariage The Epistle of Syricius to Himerius Bishop of Tarracona mentions it and so doth the IV. Synode of Carthage Can. XIII likewise Innocent I. Pope Epist IIX ad Prelum and S. Basil in Hexaem Hom. VII nor can any exception be made to the generality of it But if there could there would neverthelesse ly no maner of exception against the Power of the Church in appointing of it or the reason why the Church should appoint it supposing the premises And the experience of so much abuse as hath been committed of late yeares the same man or woman marying two brothers or sisters successively the one party marying the other being alive men marying other mens wives through the neglect of lawfull impediments for example the experience I say of abuses that have succeeded by leaving people free to marry without the blessing of the Church is enough to demonstrate the necessity thereof as supposing the allowance of the mariage And therefore the solemnity of blessing mariage intimating a supposition that it is intended for an inseparable conjunction of one with one as is that of our Lord Christ with his Church And that with due submission to the Rules of the Church from the prayers whereof the blessing is expected may well be called the Sacrament of mariage as containing a ceremony signifying that spirituall Grace of living like Christians in the state of wedlock for which it signifyeth the parties to be qualified and tending to obtaine the same by virtue of that promise which the foundation of the Church warranteth the effect of her prayers with Consider now that the Sacrament of Baptisme though it qualifieth for the promises of the Gospell yet supposing the unity of the Church out of which the Spirit of God breatheth not That every Church is the congregation of Christians that is contained in that place which is the cheife seate of that Church and the territories of it subject to the Bishop and Clergy of the same That whosoever is necessarily to minister Baptisme is not allwayes able to make him whome he baptizeth a member of the Church as in case of Heresy and Schisme the Baptisme whereof the Church alloweth to stand good but without effect of Christs promise For he that considers these things will find reason to grant that the consent of the Bishop being requisite to make any man a member of his Church according to such termes as the Rules of the whole Church shall limit the allowance of every mans Baptisme to that effect should be solemnized by his Blessing so as the effect thereof to become voide in case of the utter neglect of it This is the reason that S. Jerom advers Luciferianos renders for the solemnity of Confirmations from the unity of the Church and the person of the Bishop in which and by which every Christian is a member of the whole Church because a member of his Church whome the whole Church acknowledgeth Pastor of the same And this the reason why it was never counted peremtorily necessary for all as S. Hierome acknowledges that in villages where the Bishops occasions called him not to come Christians lived and died without it Because the testimony of all those who seeke the Bishops Blessing in acknowledgement of their Christianity the profession whereof they declare themselves to stand to by seeking the same and he by giving it to allow and of theire communion with the Church which by the same meanes they claime and he owneth is a presumption on behalfe of the rest who have not the like opportunity to seek it that neither they pretend towards the Church nor he on behalf of the Church intends towards them otherwise The ground of this construction is manifest by the practice of the Church in reconciling those Hereticks and Schismaticks whose Baptisme the Church allowed to stand good to the Church by Confirmation with imposition of hands For this supposeth that Baptisme which the Church did not repeate as allowing it ministred in due forme to have been without effect so long as they continued without the Church And to revive and take effect againe by removing that bar of separation from the Church which their reconcilement voideth If the Church of some times and some places have added to Imposition of hands a further ceremony of Chisme consisting of oil and Balsame to signify by the anointing thereof that sweet smell which the Spirit of the Messias in Esay resenteth why should it be thought that this addition in the solemnity must needs take away from the efficacy of it Is it not enough that it may take away from it in them who being zealous for the ceremony are carelesse of the substance That this is acknowledged by returning to the Apostolical simplicity of Imposition of hands Seing then that the grace of standing to the common Christianity is to be expected from the blessing of the Church upon them who have recourse to this solemnity with a disposition qualifying for the promises of the Gospel in the unity of the Church it will be no disperagement to the Sacrament of Baptisme that Confirmation should be reckoned among the Sacraments of the Church being a ceremony no way empty of that promise of sanctifying Grace which by the foundation of the Church belongs to the prayers thereof and yet the said promise no way subsisting but upon supposition of that Covenant of Grace which the Sacrament of Baptisme inacteth As for the matter of Ordination the words of Saint Paul stick close 1 Tim. IV. 14. Neglect not the grace that is in thee being given thee through prophesie by the imposition of the hands of the presbytery At least taking in Saint Paul againe 1 Cor. IV. 7. For who distinguisheth thee Or What hast thou that thou receivest not But if thou hast received why dost thou boast as not having received Which I have showed being spoken of the Grace of an Apostle is drawn into consequence on all hands concerning the grace of a Christian And therefore it will not serve the turne to say that Saint Paul speaketh of some of those graces that are called gratis datae that some for the use of the Church not for the salvation of him that hath them For Saint Paul when he calleth those graces the manifestation of the Spirit signifieth that they were given by God to manifest his presence in the Church by the visible operations of them And therefore ordinarily they presupposed in him that had them the presence of the holy Ghost to the effect of saving grace The cases of Balaam and Caiaphas or Saul or those that prophesied in Christs name I have showed
not yet onely as it inables me to conclude that this kind of prayer is not Idolatry This necessarily followes from the premises Because a man cannot take that Saint or Angel for God whose prayers he desires But manifestly showes that his desire is grounded upon the relation which he thinkes he hath to him by our Lord Christ and by his Church Neverthelesse though it be not Idolatry the consequence and production of it not being distinguishable from Idolatry the Church must needes stand obliged to give it those bounds that may prevent such mischeif as that which shall make it no Church For though the degrees are not visible by which the abuse is come to this height yet I conceive it appeares by Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. XXVIII that before S. Jerome the Saints had no roome in the Litanies which answer Pray for us after every Saints name There he telleth that S. Jerome first translated Eusebius his Martyrologe containing what Saints died on what dayes of the year at the request of Chromatius and Heliodorus Bishops upon occasion of that commendation which the Emperor Theodosius had given Gregory Bishop of Cordova for commemorating every day at the Eucharist the saints of the day And afore this he affirmeth the Saints names had no room in the Letanies And Chemnitius hath given us the transcript of an ancient Letanie out of a written Copy belonging to the Abbey of Corbey upon the Wesor which calleth upon the Saints Sancte Petre Sancte Paule c. but so that the suffrage is Exaudi Christe O Christ hear us or them for us which is the effect of the first sort of Prayer and an evident argument that the formes now in force took possession by degrees For the Letatanies are properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy upon us as the Liturgies of Saint Basil and Saint Chrisostome call them By that forme of service which the Constitutions of the Apostles relate where the Deacon indites to the people what they are to pray for in behalf of all estates in the Church and their necessities you shall see the people answer onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord have mercy That is their part Thence came the name of Letanies whether such devotions were used in Processions or otherwise That in the Letanies of Saint Gregory whereof we read in his life I. 41. 42. The Saints were spoken to the people answering Ora pro nobis pray for us it is easy to believe For of Charles the Great and Walafridus his time there is no question to be made That the same was done in Saint Basils Letanies whereof Epist LXIII or in those which Mamertus Bishop of Vienna instituted as we find by Sidonius Epist V. 14. VII 1. which have since been called Rogations there is no manner of appearance And the innovaâ—ion of Petrus Fullo the Eutychian Bishop of Antiochia after the Councile of Chalcedon which Nicephorus relates Eccles Hist XV. 28. in bringing the Blessed Virgine into the prayers of the Church is enough to assure us there is no Tradition of the Apostles for it A difference very considerable For grant the monuments of Saints and Martyrs the places for Christians to meet at for Gods service in publicke for their private devotions by primitive Christianity All this while the service of God is the work the honour of the Saints determines onely the time and place of it Processions celebrated with Letanies were assemblies for Gods service to turn away his plagues and the like And when the Saints come into them their honor becomes part of the work for which Christians assemble Suppose a simple soul can distinguish between Ora pro nobis and Domine miserere between Pray for us and Lord have mercy upon us How shall I be assured that it distinguishes between the honour that Pagans gave the lesse gods under Jupiter the Father of gods and that which himself gives the Saints under the God of those Saints And is it enough that the Church injoynes not nor teaches Idolatry Is it not further bound to secure us against it I know not whether it can be said that Processions and Letanies are voluntary devotions which the people are not answerable for if they neglect They were first brought in and since frequented at the instance of Prelates and their Clergy and if they be amisse the people are snared by their meanes that is by the Church if the Church bear them out in it And by these three sorts of Prayers it appears that without giving bounds to private conceits there is meanes to stop mens course from that extreamity which whether it be reall Idolatry or not nothing can assure us Upon these terms I stand I have heard those relations upon credit not to be questioned which make their devotions to Saints hardly distinguishable from the Idolatries of Pagans That they who preferred them could not or did not distinguish I say not In fine they demonstrate manifold more affection for the Blessed Virgine or some particular Saints then for our Lord. That they call not upon Saints to pray for them but to help them That they neither expresse nor can be presumed to meane by praying for them but by granting their prayers In fine that they demonstrate inward subjection of the heart wherein Idolatrie consists I cannot disbelieve those who relate what they see done What may be the reason why to them rather then to God It was a meanes to bring the world to be Christians that it was preswaded that God protected Christians by the intercession of those Saints whose Festivalls they solemnized But it brought them to be Christians with that love of the world and the present commodities of it which Christianity pretends to leave without the Church among the Pagans Should they resigne these affections to their Christianity they would have immediate recourse to God whom having to friend they know they need neither be troubled for plague nor toothach nor any thing which the Crosse of Christ consists with While they cannot assure themselves that they do no marvaile if they would have such Christianity as may give them hope of that by the Saints which God assures them not by it I grant it no Idolatrie that is not necessarily any Idolatrie to pray to Saints to pray for us The very matter implies an equivocation in the word praying which nothing hinders the heart to distinguish But is it fit for the Church to maintaine it because it is necessarily no Idolatry I grant Ora pro nobis in the Letanies might be taken for the ejaculation of a desire which a man knowes not whether it is heard or not as some instance in a leter which a man would write though uncertaine whether it shall come to hand or not and I could wish that the people were taught so much by the form as a powerfull meanes to preserve the distance between God and his creature alive in their esteem I count it not
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
Gods Church But here you have S. Jeromes argument if S. Paul require the use of wedlock to be foâ—borne for extraordinary devotions then hath the Church reason to indeavour that they whose ordinary devotions ought to be extraordinary in comparison of the people be such as forbeare it alwaies Especially in regard of those offices of the Church the occasions whereof may fall out at any time and sudaine Truely were there nothing to doe but to preach twice a week there could no such fall out Nor can I show you better evidence then this that that order is not the order of Gods Church Againe Epiphanius in the premises chargeth the Novatians with ignorance in not permitting the Laity to marry second wives which their Fathers the Montanists are evidently chargeable with Not considering that the Clergy were intended for the creame of Christians not in knowledg or language but in Christianity Therefore he that had been baptized in danger of death not afore and he that had done publike penance was not admitted No more was he that had marryed a second wife which when all is said is S. Pauls meaning 1. Tim. III. 2. For he that had more wives then one was no Christian and therefore in no capacity for the Clergy who was not to communicate with the Church And they who think S. Chrysostome in Epist ad Titum hom II. expounds him of those who being parted by divorce should mary a second wife must say whether afore baptisme or after For that alters the case For though it was a doubt in S. Jeromes time whether he that had marryed one afore baptisme another after were under this incapacity or not But after baptisme it is not to be thought that the Church had so little respect of our Lords Lawes as to admit adulterers though not as to the Roman Lawes yet as to Gods Athenagoras calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fashionable adultery in regard to the world For as to the Church adultery it was alwaies but never fashionable Wherefore S. Chrysostomes argument is to this purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How should he governe well the Church that kept no good will for her that was gon For a man is not chargeble for not keeping affection for her whom he puts away when she is gon but well and good for her that is dead And if he say that S. Paul hereby pun shes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the incontinent and that the case hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many blames it is plain that civill people have alwaies had them in esteeme above others that have staid at their first marryage And therefore though no civill Law forbid it as S. Chrysostome observeth nor Christianity yet is it no marvell if the lawes of the Church which the Apostles hereby inacted set a marke upon it which civility disesteemeth See Grotius his annotations on the place and Luke II. 36. If we consider that the widowes which the Church maintayned were to be such 1. Tim. V. 9. then that it hath alwaies been an incapacity by the Canons of the Church we shall not need seek any other beginning for it S. Chrysostome in 1 ad Tim. Hom X though the copy be not cleare saies plaine enough that the Apostles exacted no more then this signifying what the Canons at that time did require For I doe not pretend that the Apostles themselves either injoyned themselves single life or gave over theire wives when they went about their office Though nothing can appeares to the contrary the many examples of Bishops and Priests that gave over the use of wedlock from the time of their ministry with the consent of their wives giving appearance that they thought the Apostles had done the same It is enough that their instructions were a ground for the Church to proceed in it and a step towards it That course which the Councill of Nicaea confirmed by resting content with it seemeth agreeable both with justice and that holinesse to which the Church pretendeth But before I come to that I must not forget the second reason moving the Church to indeavour it to wit the dispensing of the Church goods according to the intent for which they are dedicated to God in being estated upon it For by the ground hereof setled in the first book it evidently appeareth that the Clergy are not proprietaries in the fruits of them But have onely full right to maintaine themselves upon them with that moderation and abstinence in their private expence which continuall attendance upon Gods service involved in their profession necessarily inferteth Otherwise it is manifest that they are trusted by Christian people with the dispensing of their oblations and consecrations to the maintenance of the poore part of the originall consideration upon which they were estated upon the Church Nor can any civill Law providing contribution of the people for the necessary subsistence of the poore of every parish ever extinguish this obligation so long as the Church is a Church and stands upon its owne title That hospitality to which Church goods are and alwaies have been accounted liable consisting not in secular intertainment which bringeth on ambition of worldly expence and costly superfluities But in providing for the poore and strangers and distressed whether at home or abrode the intent whereof redounds to the account of him that provideth the meanes and therefore the execution thereof to his account that dispenseth the same For if the intent of the Church and all the Lawes of it demonstrate that the Clergy are to be the first fruits of Christianity then doth the renouncing of the world which all Christians by their Baptisme professe in the first place take hold of them But that the injoying of superfluities in the world is utterly inconsistent with Therefore the profession of the Clergy necessarily limiteth their right in Church goods to a spare and moderate maintenance the trust which is upon them by intent of pious consecrations expressed in the originall custome and practice of the Church taking place in point of conscience where their owne necessities cease Now it is indeed become evident by corruption prevailing in the Church that single men becoming trusted with Church goods can abuse them so well to their owne riot or to the inriching of their relations that maried men could have don no more But that never came to passe til chiefly by the coming of the world into the Church those maners and customes in which the eminency of the clergy above the people did and ought to consist suffered shipwrack in the multitude of offenders after they had beene maintained a great while by the eminent abstinence of Prelates and inferiour Clergy able for authority and meanes to have produced bad examples Whether common reason is tyed to judge it more probable that the moderation and abstinence which the Clergy professeth should prevaile and take effect they living single or maried that I suppose onely comes in consideration when the dispute
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
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
the whole state is of the same Church as a corporation consisting of the same persons as the state That this is from the beginning the sense of Christendom easily appeares supposing that which I have showed by the premises that the Canons of the Church were not first in force and limited to the termes which we have in writing as the acts of generall or particular Councils from the date of those Councils But by unwritten custome derived from the Orders given out by the Apostles and their successors unto the Churches of their founding and by the intercourse of all Churches with the authority of the Clergy and consent of the people in each setled over the whole This for the time that the Church was a corporation sometimes persecuted sometimes tolerated by the Empire during which time it were ridiculous to question whether Councils were held or not But neverthelesse impossible to derive the customes of the Church from their acts After Constantine the protection of Christianity was become so firme a law of the Empire that Julian though absolute Soveraigne and miserably desirous to roote it out could not have his will of it during his short reigne And though generall Councils were called onely by the Emperors for the reasons aforesaid and particular councils might be called as oft as they pleased yet the Canon of Nicaea which provides for the holding of them twice a yeare showes the acts of them to be all the acts of the Church though with allowance of that state And what prejudice to any state in all this That God should have provided a Corporation for the Church to determine all maters determinable concerning that wherein the communion thereof consisteth Providing the state oâ— a right Power as Soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever prejudiceth the peace or weale of the state no way prejudiciall to Christianity because there is nothing in Christianity prejudiciall to any state And as Christian to see the persons trusted on behalfe of the Church observe the due bounds as well of their authority as of the mater of their acts wherein it is limited either by the word of God or by greater authority within the Church He that lookes upon the French the Spanish the English the Germane Councils will find sufficient marks as well of the ratification of secular power as of the determination of the Church Thus far the businesse is cleare For if the Rescripts of the Popes in the West which are extant after Syricius if the Canonicall Epistiles of some great Bishops in the East and afterwards the rescripts of the Patriarches of Constantinople make up the Canon Law by which they were respectively governed the allowance of the state is evident enough where the authority of the Church onely acteth But there are in the Roman Lawes abundance of acts especially of the Emperours after Justinian which give a forme and not onely force to the ordering of Church maters which is indeed to give Law to the Church obliging the Church to execute the same And there is a most eminent instance in France when Charles VII tooke occasion upon dissension between the Pope and the Councile of Basil by a convocation of his Nobles and Clergy to give a forme to the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Law within his dominions by an act called the Pragmatick sanction which tooke place in that kingom â—ill the Concordates between Francis the I. and Leo X. Pope And that with such approbation as seemes to carry the face of a protestation of the whole Church and kingdome against the said concordates Here is indeed wherewith to justifie an extraordinary course of proceeding when present disorder required an expedient And the disorder in Church maters which some alledge for the occasion whereupon Charles the Great caused the French Capitular to be made tends to the same purpose Nor doe I deny the acts of the Easterne Emperors or other soverains may be beneficiall to the Church by the inexecution of the proper Lawes of the Church and the difficulty of providing new that may be availeable But to provide with all that they may be more prejudiciall in the example of superseding the authority of the Church then beneficiall in the providing against present abuses I have given you an instance in mariages upon divorce and for the consequence of it I claime that no such acts be taken for precedents but stand liable to examination upon the principles premised though possibly usefull for the time and obliging the Church to use them for the common good Neither is it enough to prove that God hath not instituted both these interests in Church maters that both may erre and abuse their power oppose one another that it may become questionable what the one or the other of these powers may or ought to do which of those that belong to both are to follow For answer I hold it enough for me resting in the generall afore established to say That there is appearance of reason that secular Powers knowing how much it concerns both the interest of their estates and the salvation of their own soules that the Church under them be maintained in unity will not interrupt the Church in the use of that right which duely limited can adde nothing to their soveraignties if they should seize it into their hands nor take any thing from them being maintained in their hands who by Gods law are to hold it As for the Church and those that claime under the Church what appearance is there that they should attempt upon their Soveraigne but disorder in State upon difference of claime and title which what Law preventeth For as for that one instance of the Bishops of Rome and the occasion of their exempting themselves from the allegiance of the Empire I am to speak anon So that the quiet of Christendome as for this point will require no more but that the common understanding of men be conducted to discover these bounds in all publick actions publick persons believing that it is for the publick interesse as indeed it is to observe them in their proceedings If that cannot be obtained it is vaine to demand why God hath given a Law which by the partialities of the world may become uselesse and not serve to direct particular mens proceedings with quiet much more to argue that there is no such Law because it does not For we know both that God gives no Lawes but to them to whom he gives free choice to observe them or not And also that he hath given the Gospel and Christianity upon condition of bearing Christs Crosse whereof the vexations which the partialities framed upon occasion of this Law doe produce is a part Now the indowment of the Church being part of the subject of of Ecclesiasticall Law it will be requisite here to say how it is and how it is not exempt from secular right Seeing then that all Christian states and kingdomes acknowledging the Church a Corporation founded by God and
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
you say something more to limit the ground upon which they may be no lesse What limitation I would adde is plain by the premises The preaching of that Word and that ministring of the Sacraments which the Tradition of the whole Church confineth the sense of the Scriptures to intend is the onely mark of the Church that can be visible For I suppose preaching twice a Sunday is not if a man be left free to preach what he will onely professing to beleeve the Bible which what Heresy disowneth and to make what he thinks good of it And yet how is the generality of people provided for otherwise unlesse it be because they have preachers that are counted godly men by those whom what warrants to be godly men themselves In the mean time is it not evident that Preachers and people are overspread with a damnable heresy of Antinomians and Enthusiasts formerly when Puritanes were not divided from the Church of England called Etonists and Grindeltons according to severall Countries These believe so to be saved by the free Grace of God by which our Lord died for the Elect that by the revelation thereof which is justifying Faith all their sinnes past present and to come are remitted So that to repent of sinne or to contend against it is the renouncing of Gods free Grace and saving Faith How much might be alledged to show how all is now overspread with it The Book called Animadversions upon a Petition out of Wales shall serve to speak the sense of them who call themselves the godly party as speaking to them in Body Thus it speaks pag. 36. Look through your vail of duties profession and ordinances and try your heart with what spirit of love obedience and truth you are in your work And whether will you stand to this judgement Or rather that God should judge you according to grace to the name and nature of Christ written upon you and in you Sure the great Judge will thus judge us at last by his great judgement or last judgement Not by the outward conversation nor inward intention but finally by his eternall Election according to the Book of Life This just afore he calleth the seed of Christ and his righteousnesse in a Christian And pag. 38. When we are inraged we let fly at mens principles being not satisfied to rebuke mens actions opinions and workes but would be avenged of their Principles too As if we would kill them at the very hart pull them up by the Rootes and leave them in an uncurable condition rotten in their Principles But Principles ly deeper then the heart and are indeed Christ who is the Principle and beginning of all things who though heart fail and flesh faile yet he abides the root of all Shall he pretend to be a Christian that professes this Shall any pretend to be a Church that spue it not out Let heaven and earth judge whether poor soules are otherwise to be secured of the Word then by two sermons a Sunday when the sense of the Godly is claimed to consist in a position so peremptorily destructive to salvation as this It will be said perhaps that now the Ministers of the Congregations have subscribed the confession of the Assembly But alas the covering is too short When a Bishop in the Catholick Church subscribed a Councile there was just presumption that no man under his authority could be seduced from the Faith subscribed Because no man communicated with the Catholick Church but by communicating with him that had subscribed it Who shall warrant that the godly who have this sense not liable to any authority in the Church shall stand to the subscriptions of those Ministers or to the authority of the Assembly pretended by the Presbyteries If they would declare themselves tied so to do who shall warrant that there is not a salvo for it in the Confession which they subscribe If there were not why should any difficulty be made to spue out that position which is the seed of it That justifying Faith consisteth in believing that a man is of the number of the Elect for whom Christ died excluding others Why that which is the fruit of it That they who transgresse the Covenant of Baptisme come not under the state of sin and damnation come not from under the state of Grace Why but because a back-door must be left for them that draw the true conclusion from their own premises reserving themselves the liberty to deny the conclusion admitting the premises It is not then a confession of faith that will make the Word that is preached a mark of the Church without some mark visible to common sense warranting that confession of Faith As for the Sacraments no Church no Sacraments If they suppose that ground upon which that intent to which the whole Church hath used them there is no further cause of division in the Church for that secures the rule of Faith If not they are no Sacraments but by equivocation of words they are sacriledges in profaning Gods Ordinances The Sacrament of Baptisme because the necessary meanes of salvation is admitted for good when ministred by those who are not of the Church but alwaies void of the effect of grace To which it reviveth so soone as the true Faith is professed in the unity of the Church If a Sacrament be a visible signe of invisible grace that baptisme is no baptisme which signifieth the grace it should effect but indeed effecteth not Such is that Baptisme which is used to seale a Covenant of Grace without the condition of Christianity a Covenant that is not the Covenant of two parties but the promise of one Whence comes the humor of rebaptizing but to be discharged of that Christianity which the baptisme of the Church of England exacteth Why do they refuse Baptisme in New England to all that refuse to enter into the Covenant of Congregations How comes it more necessary to salvation to be of a Congregation then to be Baptized and made a Christian Is it not because it is thought that salvation is to be had without that profession of Christianity which the Sacrament of Baptisme sealeth That it is not to be had without renouncing it Upon these termes those that are denied Baptisme by the Congregations because they are not of the Congregations are denied salvation as much as in them lies but not indeed and in truth For the necessity of baptisme supposing a profession of the Catholicke Church they perish not by refusing it who will not have it by renouncing the Catholicke Church that is by covenanting themselves into Congregations They that are so affected must know that they have authority of themselves to baptize to effect which no Congregation in New England is able to do If the Sacrament of the Eucharist seale that Covenant of Grace which conditioneth not for Christianity it is no sacrament but by equivocation of words Where that conditionall is doubtfull or voide there is no security
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
rather here to prevent the objection that may be made that I ground my selfe upon the authority of men when I allege the testimonies of Church Writers For those that may abuse themselves with such a fond imagination as this are to consider that I claime as yet no other credit not onely for Tertullian who after hee turned Montanist was not of the Church but for the Fathers of the Church but that which common sense allowes men of common sense in witnessing maters of historical truth To wit that they who published writings that are come to posterity would not have alleged things for true which every man might see to be false in point of fact Because by so doing common sense must needs tell them that they must of necessity utterly discredit the cause which they meant to promote As in the case in hand If wee say that Tertullian being a Montanist alleged against the Church things so notoriously false that all the world might see and know them to be false wee refuse him the credit of a man in his right senses For what were hee but a mad man that would tell the Church that such or such Customes you know are practised among Christians knowing that they were not practised by the Catholick Church though they might be among the Montanists Therefore though I put a great deal of difference between the authority of Tertullian and S. Basil in regulating the Church yet in witneshng mater of fact I can ascribe no more to S. Basils testimony in his book de Sp. S. cap. XXVII than I do to this of Tertullian His words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of things decreed and preached that are kept in the Church some wee have from written doctrine some wee have received as delivered in secret down to us from the Tradition of the Apostles both of the same force to godlinesse And this will no man contradict that hath but a little experience in the rules of the Church For if wee go about to refuse unwritten customes as of no great effect wee shall unawares wound the Gospel in the dangerous part or rather turn the Faith preached into a bare name As first to mention the first and commonest Who taught us by writing to mark with the figure of the Crosse those that have hoped in the name of our Lord Christ Jesus What Scripture taught us to turn to the East when wee pray Which of the Saints left us by writing the words of invocation upon discovering the bread of Thanksgiving and the cup of Blessing For wee are not content with those which the Apostle or the Gospel mentions but promote and inferre others as of great force toward the Sacrament which wee have received by unwritten doctrine Wee also blesse the water of Baptisme and the oile of anointing and besides the man himself that is baptized from what Scripture and not from silent and secret Tradition And indeed what written word taught the very anointing of oile And that a man is drenched thrice whence comes it And other things about Baptisme renouncing Satan and his Angels from what Scripture come they And not from this unpublished and secret doctrine I will not here dispute the saying of S. Basil that these orders are of the same force toward Christian piety as the Scriptures And that Christianity would be but a bare name were it not for these unwritten customes how the truth of it holds Nay it were easie to instance against him as well as against Tertullian that among the particulars which they name there are those which never were in force through the whole Church but onely in some parts of it My present purpose demands onely this that Christians had rules which they observed for Lawes in the exercise of their communion And therefore by the intent of those who inforced those rules do constitute a Society or Corporation by the name of the Church Which Corporation Tertullian whether a Montanist or not when hee writ the book which I quote claimeth to belong to in reckoning himself among those that observed the Rules of the Catholick Church If wee suppose the Church to be one Body consisting of all Churches which are all of them several Bodies it will be not onely reasonable but absolutely necessary by consequence to grant that some orders there must be which shall have the force of the whole others onely in some parts of it And though S. Basil or Tertullian mistake local customes for general yet had there not alwaies been a Body capable of being tied by general customes there had been no room for this mistake No prejudice shall hinder mee to name here the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles Not as if I meant to maintain that the writings so called were indeed penned by them But because they contain such limitations of customes delivered the Church by the Apostles as were received and in use at such times and in such parts of the Church where those who penned those writings writ For though I should grant that those limitations are not agreeable to that which was brought in by the Apostles no man would be so ridiculous as to demand that there were never any orders or customes delivered the Church by the Apostles which succeeding times did limit otherwise The book of Canons which was acknowledged by the representatives of the whole Church in the Council of Chalcedon if it be survayed shall be found to contain onely particular limitations of general orders held by the Church before those Canons were made by the several Councils either the same with those in the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles or differing onely according to several times and places For wee have yet extant a book of Canons made out of the Africane Councils containing the like limitations of the same customes and orders which though not the same yet served to preserve the Churches of Africk in unity with the rest of the Church This Code wee finde added to the former by Dionysius Exâ—guus in his translation of the Canons together with the Canons of the Council at Sardica And Cassiodore who lived the same time with Dionysius affirmes that this collection was in use in the Church of Rome at that time Divin lect cap. XXIII But there is extant a later Collection of Canons under the title of the Church of Rome consisting of the same Canons together with some of the Rescripts of Popes which were come into use and authority in the Western Church at such time as the said Collection was made Of the same Canons consisteth another Greek collection printed by du Tillet and commented by Balsamon which addeth hereunto the Canons of the sixth and seventh Synod in use in the Greek Church but not acknowledged by the Latine Where instead thereof the collections of Martinus Braccarensis and Isidorus Mercator of Burchardns Bishop of Wormes and Ives of Chartres where last of all the collection of Gratiane the Dominican Monk was in
use till the Rescripts of the Pope took place and excluded the Canons of the whole Church The succession of which Law is so visible that hee that may say that the order presently in force can no way agree with that which was established by the Apostles shall not have the face to asfirm that there never was any order established by the Apostles instead of it so visible shall the impressions be of that corruption by which it declines from the order first established by the Apostles And therefore I allege here in the last place the consent of those of the Reformation who in answering this objection when it is argued that therefore Tradition is necessary as well as Scripture do not deny that there was a Rule of Faith that there were Orders delivered the Church by the Apostles to preserve the Unity of the Church But to answer for themselves why they stand not to the present Church of Rome in them do allege That the Rule of Faith delivered the Church by word of mouth is also delivered by writing and contained in the Scriptures Tnat the Rules of good order which the Apostles delivered were never intended to be unchangeable as you may heare Tertullian say de Velandis Virginibus cap. I. For in making this answer they do acknowledge that the Church had a Rule of Faith which it had received for a Law from the Apostles and therefore delivered for a Law to all that became Christians But whether this Rule be contained in the Scriptures or not concernes not my present purpose seeing it will be as much the cognizance of Christians and foundation of the Society and Corporation of the Church tending to maintain unity in the profession and exercise of Christianity whether so or otherwise Onely no man will deny that it may be not so easie to discern by the Scriptures alone what belongs to it what not as it may appear to be by the Churches delivering of it Nor do I pretend here that the orders delivered by the Apostles are all unchangeable For who knoweth not that the Lawes of every Common-wealth do change from age to age the state of Government remaining the same because those rights in which Soveraignty consisteth remain the same And therefore it is enough for my purpose that the Church had certain orders regulating the proceeding thereof in maters wherein it is to communicate as well under the Apostles as in succeeding ages Nor requiring that they should be alwaies the same but that they should come alway from the same power which they left in the Church that so the Body may appear to continue alwaies one and the same And that I proceed to prove by showing that the power of those publick persons which did alwaies act in behalf of the Church in admitting into and excluding out of the Church whereby those Laws were in force and wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth is derived from our Lord by the act of his Apostles CHAP. VIII That the Power of Governing the whole Church was in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and those whom they took to assist them in the parts of it The Power of their Successors must needs be derived from those Why that Succession which appeares in one Church necessarily holdeth all Churches The holding of Councils evidenceth the Vnity of the Church FOr this I must presume of in the first place That as the Church is and was to be the true spiritual Israel of God when his ancient people departed from him by refusing the Gospel So to signifie this did our Lord chuse out XII Apostles and LXX Disciples answerable to the XII Princes of Tribes and the LXX Elders which with Moses were to govern Gods ancient people Neither do I mervail that wee finde in the Scriptures no further use made of these LXX no further power exercised by them under that title The difference between Gods ancient and new people appearing straight after our Lords Ascension and making that order uselesse for the future For Israel dwelling all in one Land might easily be governed by one Soveraign Court in maters of the Law answerable in power to that of Moses and his LXX Elders But Christianity being to be dispersed all over the world those LXX with our Lord chose for his present service could not serve for the like purpose in time to come It is therefore enough that the number of them signifies unto us the foresaid purpose their office for the time to come being swallowed up in the offices of the rest of our Lords Disciples besides the XII Apostles remaining alwaies the Judges of the XII Tribes of Israel here and in the world to come I am sensible that some both of our Presbyterians and Independents have been nibbling at this point as if they had a minde if they durst to say That the Apostles had no authority in the Church but as writers of Scriptures As for the Goverment of the Church that the people or their buckram Elders were to give them checkmate in it But having met with this pretense in another place and heard no man open his mouth to maintain it I shall at present rest content to have showed afore that their authority is the ground of the authority of their writings here that their Traditions were Law to the Church and that by their writings which mention not so much as what the Traditions were Whereby it appears that they took place as acts of their perpetual authority over the Church not as revelations of Gods will sent by those Epistles wherein sometimes they are not so much as named Besides the Apostles then at such time as the Church of Jerusalem contained all Christendome as I observed afore you have mention of the Elders at Jerusalem Acts XI 30. XV. 2 4 6 22 23. And again after the propagation of Christianity XXI 18. Of leading men also among the brethren who were also Prophets Doctors and Evangelists XV. 22 32 35. These then had not their commission from the Apostles because other disciples as well as the XII received at our Lords own hands the power of remitting sins by the Holy Ghost John XX. 18-23 But there was never yet any doubt made that their authority was limitable by the Apostles because of the eminence of the XII among the Disciples And therefore hee that would say that the LXX were contained in the number of those Elders and Leaders could no more be contradicted then some of the Ancient Fathers can be contradicted in reporting that some of them were of the number of the VII that were chosen to assist the Apostles Acts VI. S. Paul further rehearsing the graces that our Lord hath granted for the edification of his Church reckoneth Apostles Evangelists Prophets Pastors and Doctors Eph. IV. 11. 1 Cor. XII 28. Now it is the whole Church that the Apostle speaks of here as I observed afore and therefore the authority here mentioned extendeth to the whole Church But
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
the one side the will of the Law-giver is the reason of those bounds which he limits and therefore he is not obliged to inact those bounds vvhereof there is no reason to be seen His ovvn knovvledge of what was fitting for his design of husbanding the restraints of the Lâ—vv â—o as to make vvay for the necessity of the Gospel being the only reason that remainâ— undisputable And is not the instance manifest in that the Fathers sisters being prohibited by the Law the sisters Daughter is not vvhereupon Herod maried his neâ—ce and espoused his daughter to his brother Phâ—râ—ras Jos Ant. XII XVI Which he that considers will not despise a probable reason evident to the Jevvs though he acknovvledge that it inforces nothing sâ—tting the vvill of the Lavv-giver aside To vvit that the young are vvont to frequent their Grand-fathers and Grand-Mothers houses and there to have convâ—rsation vvith their Fathers sisters having lesse interess in Brothers houses and so frequenting them lesse Which holds also in the brothers house more then the wives sisters And so the reasons of the prohibitions of Leviticus XVIII being two neâ—rnesse of blood occasion of uncleannesse if the Law had not made the mariages of such persons unclean this reason may way where the other does not appear As for the inconvenience that is feared that Christian people should license themselves to do that under the Gospel which it is confessed that Gods people under the Law were not prohibited to doe for it is manifest that some which count themselves great Saints have done it either people do believe the Holy Catholick Church or not If they believe it they must believe the power of the Church in limiting that which our Lord Christ hath not limited in â—estifying where our Lord Christ and his Apostles have liâ—ited though not recorded to us by the Scriptures according as I have deduced it in the premises If not it is no marvail to see that Apostacy from the belief unity of Gods Church should now then draw after it licentiousnâ—sse in such a point as this is If the Canons and Customes hitherto reverenced by all Christians as the remains and evidence of the conversation delivered over by the successors of our Lord to his Church cannot prevail with men to forbear that which no example but their own warrants the Scripture cannot stand long standing onely upon motives of conscience It is as ordinary to hear it said that the Scripture which is contained in the Bible is not the Scripture but that which is written in the heart that the man that was crucified at Jerusalem is not Christ but he that dwels in the heâ—râ— as it is to see a man mary the sister of his deceased wife Temporall punishments may deterre â—en from publishing such blasphemies But if the unity of the Church come not in to evidence the motives of faith and by consequence to procure the reverence of those Laws whereby onely it may be maintained it will be as easie and obvious to despise Christianity and the Scriptures as the Church and those Rulers wherâ—by the service of God is maintained in the unity of it As concerning the Mariages of Cousin Germanes the premises being supposed I am not a whit troubled that I cannot produce such Canons in writing as may evidence that all Christians from the beginning forbore it For â—aving showed that all the Canons of the Church were in effect and force before they were written and inacted by Councils and that the inacting of them was but the limiting of some circumstances abating the rigour of primitive customes because the number of Christians multiplying could not so easily be hâ—ld to it I cannot see how S. Augustine can be refused when he tells us de Civ dei XV. 16. Raro per mores fiebat quod fieri per leges licebat quia id nec divina prohibeat nondum prohibâ—erat lex â—umanâ— Verâ—ntamen factum â—etiam licitum propter vicinitatem horrebatur illiciti Seldome was that done by reason of custome which by reason of lâ—w might have been done because neither did Gods Law prohibite it nor as yet â—ad mans Law prohibited it Notwithstanding being lawful to be done it was abhorred for the neighbour-hood of that which was unlawful Gods Law in Leviticus had not forbidden it Nor the Laws of the Empire as yet How then came Christians to abhorre that which the law of God and Man saith S. Augustine that is to say the law of Moses and of the Empire licensed Is it possible that Christendom of it own free motion should conspire to impose upon it selfe such a restraint having no share in Christianity It is still as easie to maintain that the world was made by the casuall meeting of Atomes according to Epicurus denying providence But suppose the Apostles and their successors to have received for a necessary point of Christianity that unlesse our righetousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees we shall by â—o means enter into the Kingdom of heaven and suppose them to have the allowance of all mariages that is the discerning of what is agreeable to Christianity from what not and you render a sufficient reason how such a custome should prevail in the Church which otherwise is not to be rendred And supposing such a custome you grant that that which Christians abhorred onely because it was neer that which the law of Moses or the law of the Empire made unlawfull was become it selfe unlawfull by virtue of that custome which no Christian that would not offend the unity of the Church could lawfully transgresse The saying of Justine the Martyr Ep. ad Zenam Serâ—num is truly Apostolical and takes place here again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes that are and in their lives go beyond the Lawes speaking of the Christians But if it were the character of Christians to go beyond the Laws shall we count it a thing lawful for a Christian to efface in himselfe the common character of Christians When the Great Theodosius made it a Law to the Empire not to mary Cousin Germanes which is the Law that S. Augustine intimates for which he is so much commended not onely by S. Ambrose Ep. LXVI but by the Heathen Historian Sex Aureliâ—s Victor in Theodosio did he do this for a frolick all reason of state disswading the imposing of unnecessary burthens where the necessary were so great or did he do it because he would promote Chistianity by imposing upon the Empire before it was all Christian the custome of Christianity I know this act was repealed by Justinian and perhaps upon advice of some Bishops who alwaies frequented him as we understand by Procopius But neither is the authority of Justinian of weight in the question of Christianity neither did those Bishops that might give this advice act in the quality of Bishops but of his friends and Counsailers their opinion as Bishops would not have served to
change the customes of the Church Therefore this repeal never took place in the West For first the Gothes retained Theodosius his Law as Cassidore VII 46. testifieth which Cvias saith is the reason why in Gaiâ—s out of whom Justinian took his Institutes for the most part it is at this day read Duorum fratrum vel sororum liberi vel fratris sororis jungi non possunt The children of two Brothers or Sisters or of a Brother and Sister may not mary together contrary to that which Justinian is known to have inacted Then the later Emperours revived the Law of Theodosius upon which occasion it is still read in many Copies of the Institutes de Nupt. X. 4. non possunt expresly against many parts of Justinians Law And for the East how shall we say that Justinians Law was repealed or upon what ground but that the custome of the Church prevailed to move Christian Emperours to repeal it seeing Christendom scandalized at the license introduced by it He therefore that alleges Iâ—stinian in these cases or even Moses let him allege Herods marying his Brothers Daughter and espousing his Daughter to his Brother Pheroras in Iosephus Aâ—t XII XVI and so allowing the same which when Claudius for his own lust licensed there was scarce found a Gentleman in Rome that would do the like as Tacitus reporteth Indeed when S. Austine says this was rarely done afore Theodosius signifying that sometimes it was done we must accknowledge not onely that the mariage was not void that was so made from the beginning for neither is the mariage of the deceased wives Sister or of the neece void by the Canons of the Apostles and the Eliberine Canon injoyns upon marying the wives sister five yeares Penance signifying that it was not void but also we remain uncertain whether it were censured by the Church or how But when S. Gregory allows Austine the Monk to allow the first Christian Saxons to mary in the fourth degree we are not certified whither according to the account of the Romane Law or according to that account which the Popes afterwards brought in use For the Romane Law counting the stock for one made no first degree in the cross line but reckoned Brothers the second and by consequence Cousin Germanes the fourth determining both legall successions and affinities within seven degrees which are sometime called six as you include both terms or exclude the one L. X. ff de gradibus affinibus Paulus Sent. IV. 11. ubi Anianus Modest L. XLV ff de gradibus affinibuâ— Whereupon mariage was first forbidden in the West as far as the seventh degree inclusive Caus XXV q. 2 3. cap. 20. ib. Greg. P P. I. Nic. P P. II. c. 17. ib. sentent IV. dist XL. Isid Orig. IX c. 6. Caus XXXV q. 5. Grat. c. 21. whereby it should seem that this degree was dispensed with by S. Gregory being otherwise then prohibited But the Pope afterwards introducing a contrary way of counting brothers for one degree and Cousin Germanes the second which before were the second and the fourth determined kindred by seven of these degrees which were before just halfe so many Alex. PP 2. c. 2. Caus XXXV q. 5. and all these prohibited c. 14. Caus XXXV q. 2 3. till reduced to the fourth by the Laterane Council under Innocent III. for the difficulty and burthen of it which fourth is just the eight by the former account which is now the law of the West under the Pope A thing which I cannot admire at enough either how proposed or how admitted Whereas in the East the seventh degree according to the Roman account is neither permitted nor the mariage dissolved if consummate Ius Graecorum L. III. p. 204. lib. IV. pag. 266. afterwards under Michael Patriarch of C P. Ib. lib. 3. p. 206. the seventh was forbidden the eighth alwayes licensed See further Harmenop lib. IV. Tit. 5 Arcudius VII 30. which I allege all to no purpose but this that the consent of Christendom submitting to be restrained beyond all degrees any way pretended to be expressed by Gods Law is an evidence of the two Principles alledged that they were from the beginning admitted by all Christendom Indeed when it is said that which the Church censured not which S. Gregory dispensed with which the Romane Emperours and Gothish Kings reserved themselves a power of dispensing in as appeares by a Law of Honorius and Theodosius in C. Theod. Si nuptia ex resciptâ— pâ—tantur and by Cassiâ—d VII 46. It is no marvail if it be permitted by the Statute of H. VIII XXXVI 38. we may see the case hath been not much otherwise with us since that statute then with Christendom before the act of Theodosius For as then the known custome of the Church so since with us the remains of the opinion of that publick honesty which Christianity first introduced hath been the cause that few have used the known liberty of the temporal law and that with such reluctation of judgement as hath been thought the occasion of evill consequences As for those degrees which being prohibited by the Popes are of course dispensed in for paying the fees without any notice of particular reason in the case as it is not for me either to maintain the abuse of Ecclesiasticall power or because of the abuse to yield the Church to have no power in those causes which it could have no power in if that power might not be abused so I am able to conclude that it were more Christian for any Christian state to undergo a burthen altogether unreasonable then to shake of a burthen for which there is so much reason in Christianity as I have showed for prohibiting the mariage of Cousin Germanes Another impediment of force to void mariage whether onely contracted or consummate also by carnall knowledge pretended by the Church of Rome and practised in the Eastern Church is that of profession of single life to attend upon the service of God alone For whether Christians under wedlock upon consent may part from bed and bord for this purpose there is no reason for any Christian to make difficulty the wish of S. Paul that all were as he 1 Cor. VII 1. taking place in them as well as in all others That to avoid fornication one man should mary one wife not taking place but in them in whom no such resolution is supposed Upon which supposition they are commanded to return to the use of wedlock after having retired for Prayer and Fasting least Satan tempt them through their incontinence But this is disputable whether it be a dissolution of the bond or onely a suspension of the exercise of mariage It is further pretended that the one party may by publishing such a profession make void the mariage that is not yet consummate by carnall knowledge leaving the other free to mary elsewhere This in the Church of Rome For in the Eastern Church I doubt