who those men are must also be certaine before it will be adjudg'd a sinne not to submit But if I mistake not Christs saying call no man master upon earth is so great a prejudice against this pretence as I doubt it will goe neere wholy to make it invalid So that as the worshipping of Angels is a humility indeed but it is voluntary and a will-worship to an ill sence not to be excused by the excellency of humility nor the vertue of Religion so is the relying upon the judgement of man an humility too but such as comes not under that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that obedience of Faith which is the duty of every Christian but intrenches upon that duty which we owe to Christ as an acknowledgement that he is our great Master and the Prince of the Catholike Church But whether it be or be not if that be the Question whether the disagreeing person be to be determined by the dictates of men I am sure the dictates of men must not determine him in that Question but it must be settled by some higher principle So that if of that Question the disagreeing person does opine or believe or erre bonâ fide he is not therefore to be judg'd a Heretick because he submits not his understanding because till it bee sufficiently made certaine to him that hee is bound to submit he may innocently and piously disagree and this not submitting is therefore not a crime and so cannot make a heresy because without a crime he may lawfully doubt whether he be bound to submit or no for that 's the Question And if in such Questions which have influence upon a whole systeme of Theology a man may doubt lawfully if he doubts heartily because the authority of men being the thing in Question cannot bee the judge of this Question and therefore being rejected or which is all one being questioned that is not believed cannot render the doubting person guilty of pride and by consequence not of heresy much more may particular questions be doubted of and the authority of men examined and yet the doubting person be humble enough and therefore no Heretick for all this pretence And it would be considered that humility is a duty in great ones as well as in Idiots And as inferiours must not disagree without reason so neither must superiours prescribe to others without sufficient authority evidence and necessity too And if rebellion be pride so is tyranny and it being in materiâ intellectuali both may be guilty of pride of understanding sometimes the one in imposing sometimes the other in a causelesse disagreeing but in the inferiours it is then only the want of humility when the guides impose or prescribe what God hath also taught and then it is the disobeying Gods dictares not mans that makes the sinne But then this consideration will also intervene that as no dictate of God obliges men to believe it unlesse I know it to be such So neither will any of the dictates of my superiours engage my faith unlesse I also know or have no reason to dis believe but that they are warranted to teach them to me therefore because God hath taught the same to them which if I once know or have no reason to think the contrary if I disagree my sinne is not in resisting humane authority but divine And therefore the whole businesse of submitting our understanding to humane authority comes to nothing for either it resolves into the direct duty of submitting to God or if it be spoken of abstractedly it is no duty at all But this pretence of a necessity of humbling the understanding is none of the meanest arts whereby some persons have Numb 13. invaded and usurpt a power over mens faith and consciences and therefore we shall examine the pretence afterwards and try if God hath invested any Man or company of Men with such a power In the meane time he that submits his understanding to all that he knowes God hath said and is ready to submit to all that he hath said if he but know it denying his own affections and ends and interests and humane perswasions laying them all down at the foot of his great Master Jesus Christ that man hath brought his understanding into subjection and every proud thought unto the obedience of Christ and this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Faith which is the duty of a Christian. But to proceed Besides these heresies noted in Scripture the age of the Apostles and that which followed was infested Numb 14. with other heresies but such as had the same formality and malignity with the precedent all of them either such as taught practicall impieties or denyed an Article of the Creed Egesippus in Eusebius reckons seven only prime heresies that sought to defloure the purity of the Church That of Simon that of Thebutes of Cleobius of Dositheus of Gortheus of Masbotheus I suppose Cerinthus to have been the seventh man though he expresse him not But of these except the last we know no particulars but that Egesippus sayes they were false Christs and that their doctrine was directly against God and his blessed Sonne Menander also was the first of a Sect but he bewitched the people with his Sorceries Cerinthus his doctrine pretended Enthusiasm or a new Revelation and ended in lust and impious theorems in matter of uncleannesse The * Vid. Hilar. lib. 1. de Trin. Ebionites denyed Christ to be the Sonne of God and affirmed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begot by naturall generation by occasion of which and the importunity of the Asian Bishops S. John writ his Gospel and taught the observation of Moses Law Basilides taught it lawfull to renounce the faith and take false oaths in time of Persecution Carpocrates was a very bedlam halfe-witch and quite mad-man and practizd lust which he cald the secret operations to overcome the Potentates of the world Some more there were but of the same nature and pest not of a nicety in dispute not a question of secret Philosophy not of atomes and undiscernable propositions but open defiances of all Faith of all sobriety and of all sanctity excepting only the doctrine of the Millenaries which in the best Ages was esteemed no heresy but true Catholike Doctrine though since it hath justice done to it and hath suffered a just condemnation Hitherto and in these instances the Church did esteeme Numb 15. and judge of herefies in proportion to the rules and characters of Faith For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth that which was either destructive of fundamentall verity or of Christian sanctity was against Faith and if it made a Sect was heresy if not it ended in personall impiety and went no farther But those who as S. Paul sayes not only did such things but had pleasure in them that doe them and therefore taught others to do what they impiously did dogmatize they were Hereticks both in
integrity of Christian Faith or salvation of our souls Christ declared all the will of his Father and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries and were faithfull in all the house and therefore conceald nothing but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ so they said themselves And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith an Angel or a man might have taught us other things then what they taught without deserving an Anathema but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith and then where was their infallibility and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title for she may as well introduce a falshood as loose a truth it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth as that she shall be preserved from all errors as appears Ioh. 16. 13. Or if she retaind all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught then no Age can by declaring any point make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration And indeed if the * Vide Iacob Almain in 3. Sent. d 25. Q. Vnic Dub. 3 Patet ergo quod nulla veritas est Catholica ex approbatione Ecclesiae vei Papae Gabr. Biel. in 3. Sent. Dist 25. q. Unic art 3. Dub. 3. ad finem Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary which before was not necessary I doe not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to doe especially after so long experience shee hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication for by so doing she makes the narrow way to heaven narrower and chalks out one path more to the Devill then he had before and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest For before differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions and now afterthis declaration if they cannot there is no other alteration made but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and beliefe should have been beatified persons For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errors were not discovered for if they had been contested for that would have been cald discovery enough vel errores emendassent vel ab Ecclesiâ Bellar. de laici◠l. 3. c. 20. §. ad primam confirmationem ejecti fuissent But it is better as it was they went to heaven by that good fortune whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devill And yet there were some errors particularly that of S. Cyprian that was discovered and he went to heaven 't is thought possibly they might so too for all this pretence But suppose it true yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or beene ignorant does more good then the damning of those many soules occasionally but yet certainely and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodnesse to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unlesse he had furnished these men with an infallible judgement and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never doe it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designes of which I think no Arguments can make us certaine what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unlesse the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believ'd with the Articles Apostolicall and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unlesse a new building be to be made the foundation is Numb 13. the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himselfe yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary beliefe to all which are the only foundation they cannot be severall in severall Ages and to severall persons Nay the sentence declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produc'd or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habite of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more then the act of the visive faculty can adde visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and requir'd of us to believe we need not we cannot goe any further for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as farre off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be beliv'd
this often hapned I think S. Austin is the chiefe Argument and Authority we have for the Assumption of the Virgin Mary the Baptism of Infants is called a Tradition by Origen alone at first and from Salmeron disput 51. in Rom. him by others The procession of the holy Ghost from the Sonne which is an Article the Greek Church disavowes derives from the Tradition Apostolicall as it is pretended and yet before S. Austin we heare nothing of it very cleerly or certainly for as much as that whole mystery concerning the blessed Spirit was so little explicated in Scripture and so little derived to them by Tradition that till the Councell of Nice you shall hardly find any form of worship or personall addresse of devotion to the holy Spirit as Erasmus observes and I think the contrary will very hardly be verified And for this particular in which I instance whatsoever is in Scripture concerning it is against that which the Church of Rome calls Tradition which makes the Greeks so confident as they are of the point and is an Argument of the vanity of some things which for no greater reason are called Traditions but because one man hath said so and that they can be proved by no better Argument to be true Now in this case wherein Tradition descends upon us with unequall certainty it would be very unequall to require of us an absolute beliefe of every thing not written for feare we be accounted to slight Tradition Apostolicall And since no thing can require our supreme assent but that which is truly Catholike and Apostolike and to such a Tradition is requir'd as Irenaeus sayes the consent of all those Churches which the Apostles planted and where they did preside this topick will be of so little use in judging heresies that besides what is deposited in Scripture it cannot be proved in any thing but in the Canon of Scripture it selfe and as it is now received even in that there is some variety And therefore there is wholy a mistake in this businesse for when the Fathers appeal to Tradition and with much earnestnesse Numb 8. and some clamour they call upon Hereticks to conform to or to be tryed by Tradition it is such a Tradition as delivers the fundamentall points of Christianity which were also recorded in Scripture But because the Canon was not yet perfectly consign'd they call'd to that testimony they had which was the testimony of the Churches Apostolicall whose Bishops and Priests being the Antistites religionis did believe and preach Christian Religion and conserve all its great mysteries according as they had been taught Irenaeus calls this a Tradition Apostolicall Christum accepisse calicem dixisse sanguinem suum esse docuisse novam oblationem novi Testamenti quam Ecclesia per Apostolos accipiens offert per totum mundum And the Fathers in these Ages confute Hereticks by Ecclesiasticall Tradition that is they confront against their impious and blaspemous doctrines that Religion which the Apostles having taught to the Churches where they did preside their Successors did still preach and for a long while together suffered not the enemy to sow tares amongst their wheat And yet these doctrines which they called Traditions were nothing but such fundamentall truths which were in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Irenaeus in Eusebius observes in the instance of Polycarpus and it is manifest by considering Lib. 5. cap. 20. what heresies they fought against the heresies of Ebion Cerinthus Nicolaitans Valentinians Carpocratians persons that Vid. Irenae l. 3 4. cont haeres denyed the Sonne of God the Unity of the God-head that preached impurity that practised Sorcery and Witch-craft And now that they did rather urge Tradition against them then Scripture was because the publike Doctrine of all the Apostolicall Churches was at first more known and famous then many parts of the Scripture and because some Hereticks denyed S. Lukes Gospel some received none but S. Matthews some rejected all S. Pauls Epistles and it was a long time before the whole Canon was consign'd by universall Testimony some Churches having one part some another Rome her selfe had not all so that in this case the Argument from Tradition was the most famous the most certain and the most prudent And now according to this rule they had more Traditions then we have and Traditions did by degrees lessen as they came to be written and their necessity was lesse as the knowledge of them was ascetained to us by a better Keeper of Divine Truths All that great mysteriousnesse of Christs Priest-hood the unity of his Sacrifice Christs Advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven and many other excellent Doctrines might very well be accounted Traditions before S. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrews was publish'd to all the World but now they are written truths and if they had not possibly we might either have lost them quite or doubted of them as we doe of many other Traditions by reason of the insufficiency of the propounder And therefore it was that S. Peter took order that the Gospel 2 Pet. 1. 13. should be Writ for he had promised that he would doe something which after his decease should have these things in remembrance He knew it was not safe trusting the report of men where the fountain might quickly run dry or be corrupted so insensibly that no cure could be found for it nor any just notice taken of it till it were incurable And indeed there is scarce any thing but what is written in Scripture that can with any confidence of Argument pretend to derive from the Apostles except ritualls and manners of ministration but no doctrines or speculative mysteries are so transmitted to us by so cleer a current that we may see a visible channell and trace it to the Primitive fountaines It is said to be a Tradition Apostolicall that no Priest should baptize without chrism and the command of the Bishop Suppose it were yet we cannot be oblig'd to believe it with much confidence because we have but little proofe for it scarce any thing but the single testimony of S. Hierom. And yet if it were this is but a rituall of which in passing by I shall give that account That Dialog adv Lucifer suppose this and many more ritualls did derive clearly from Tradition Apostolicall which yet but very few doe yet it is hard that any Church should be charged with crime for not observing such ritualls because we see some of them which certainly did derive from the Apostles are expir'd and gone out in a desuetude such as are abstinence from blood and from things strangled the coenobitick life of secular persons the colledge of widowes to worship standing upon the Lords day to give milk and honey to the newly baptized and many more of the like nature now there having been no mark to distinguish the necessity of one from the indifferency of the other they are all
at this day vex Christendome And both speak true The first Ages speak greatest truth but least pertinently The next Ages the Ages of the foure generall Councels spake something not much more pertinently to the present Questions but were not so likely to speak true by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages and if they speak wisely as Doctors yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not and yet unlesse they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be lesse uselesse as to our present affaires For indeed the Questions which now are the publike trouble were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions in the Questions of out times is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose For no Church at this day admits the one halfe of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolicall and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one halfe of the present Questions to be or not to be Traditions So that they who admit only the Doctrine and Testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us because their Writings are of matters wholy differing from the present disputes and they which would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witnesse say the same thing for they plainly confesse that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sense of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councels of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never nam'd the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would faine have the world believe to be Apostolicall But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration Lastly We are acquitted by the Testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing then of Numb 11. such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who L. 3. c. 2. contr haeres affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wipt out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae vitium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poore device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might doe before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consign'd and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolicall are to be entertain'd according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it selfe that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it selfe is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the lesse for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consign'd in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a generall and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride Apostasy from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he sayes is delivered then the first being expresse Scripture and the second being consign'd in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his Answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such generall consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolicall then Scripture is uselesse as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it selfe first and more credible for it is credible of it selfe and therefore unlesse S. Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sense he could have in these words For no man in the world except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon-the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetuall teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consign'd all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my selfe no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the beliefe of such Authorities and will but consider the very many Testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of a Orat. ad Nicen PP apud Theodor. l. 1. c. 7. Constantine b In Matth. l. 4. c. 23. in Aggaeum S. Hierom c De bono viduil c. 1. S. Austin d Orat. contr gent. S. Athaenasius e In
Faith but especially by the insinuation and consequent De Rom. Pont. l 4. c. 2. § secunda sententia acknowledgement of Bellarmine that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Popes infallibility for Nilus Gerson Alemain the Divines of Paris Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI persons who liv'd 1400 after Christ affirm that infallibility is not seated in the Popes person that he may erre and sometimes actually hath which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor generall opinion of the Fathers or of any age before them and therefore this opinion which Bellarmine would faine blast if he could yet in his Conclusion he sayes it is not propriè haeretica A device and an expression of his own without sense or precedent But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it For as Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers he sayes that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children and therefore they cannot depose against him and if that be true why shall we take their Testimonies for him for if Sonnes depose in their Fathers behalfe it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such topicks and that where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engag'd men by not regarding what any man sayes proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine sayes nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say for that will bee Numb 13. but to presse upon personall perswasions or to urge a generall Question with a particular defaillance and the Question is never the nearer to an end for if Bellarmine sayes any thing that is not to another mans purpose or perswasion that man will be tryed by his own Argument not by anothers And so would every man doe that loves his liberty as all wise men doe and therefore retain it by open violence or private evasions But to return An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question and on behalf of the Popes infallibility or the Authority of the Sea of Rome Numb 14. or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation and answering such Authorities yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question it is protestatio contra factum For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victors infallibity that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter day and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then why is she not now where is the succession of her doctrine But if she was not of that opinion then and Irenaeus was where was his beliefe of that Churches infallibility The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of rebaptization and he and the abettors Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voisinage spoke harsh words of Stephen and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor and the supreme Head of the Church I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that Sea but only note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him because it is of good use to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority For he sayes that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles cum in multis sacramentis divinae rei à Epist. Firmiliani contr Steph. ad Cyprian Vid. etiam Ep. Cypriani ad Pompeium principio discrepet ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitanâ defamet Petrum Paulum tanquam authores And a little after justè dedignor sayes he apertam manifestam stultitiam Stephani per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution and from the Church of Jerusalem which they had as great esteeme of for Religion sake as of Rome for its principality and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication which words I confesse passe my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of infallibility and although they were spoken by an angry person yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they were at Rome Nam Cyprian Epist ad Quintum 〈◊〉 nec Petrus quem primum Dominus clegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolentèr aut arrogantèr assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere That was their belief then and how the contrary hath grown up to that heigth where now it is all the world is witnesse And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius Qui tecum non colligit spargit For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer but if Liberius's name had been put instead of Damasus the case had been altered with the name for S. Hierom did believe and write it so that Liberius had subscrib'd to Arrianism And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the De Script Eccles. in Fortunatiano Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith faile but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendome Why did they not appeale to the Pope in the Arrian Controversy why was the Bishop of Rome made a Party and a concurrent as other good Bishops were and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question Why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of heresy Why were the Emperours at so much charge and the Church at so much trouble as to call and convene in Councels respectively to dispute so frequently to write so sedulously to observe all advantages
life for in matters speculative as all determinations are fallible so scarce any of them are to purpose nor ever able to make compensation of either side either for the publike fraction or the particular injustice if it should so happen in the censure But then as the Church may proceed thus far yet no Christian man or Community of men may proceed farther For if they Numb 2. be deceived in their judgement and censure and yet have passed onely spirituall censures they are totally ineffectuall and come to nothing there is no effect remaining upon the soule and such censures are not to meddle with the body so much as indirectly But if any other judgement passe upon persons erring such judgements whose effects remaine if the person be unjustly censured nothing will answer and make compensation for such injuries If a person be excommunicate unjustly it will doe him no hurt but if he be killed or dismembred unjustly that censure and infliction is not made ineffectuall by his innocence he is certainly kill'd and dismembred So that as the Churches authority in such cases so restrained and made prudent cautelous and orderly is just and competent so the proceeding is reasonable it is provident for the publike and the inconveniences that may fall upon particulars so little as that the publique benefit makes ample compensation so long as the proceeding is but spirituall This discourse is in the case of such opinions which by the former rules are formall heresies and upon practicall inconveniences Numb 3. But for matters of question which have not in them an enmity to the publique tranquillity as the Republique hath nothing to doe upon the ground of all the former discourses so if the Church meddles with them where they doe not derive into ill life either in the person or in the consequent or else are destructions of the foundation of Religion which is all one for that those fundamentall articles are of greatest necessity in order to a vertuous and godly life which is wholly built upon them and therefore are principally necessary If she meddles further otherwise then by preaching and conferring and exhortation she becomes tyrannicall in her government makes her selfe an immediate judge of consciences and perswasions lords it over their faith destroyes unity and charity and as if he that dogmatizes the opinion becomes criminall if he troubles the Church with an immodest peevish and pertinacious proposall of his article not simply necessary so the Church does not doe her duty if she so condemnes it pro tribunali as to enjoyne him and all her subjects to beleeve the contrary And as there may be pertinacy in doctrine so there may be pertinacy in judging and both are faults The peace of the Church and the unity of her doctrine is best conserved when it is judged by the proportion it hath to that rule of unity which the Apostles gave that is the Creed for Articles of meer beliefe and the precepts of Jesus Christ and the practicall rules of piety which are most plaine and easie and without controversie set downe in the Gospels and Writings of the Apostles But to multiply articles and adopt them into the family of the faith and to require assent to such articles which as S. Pauls phrase is are of doubtfull disputation equall to that assent wee give to matters of faith is to build a Tower upon the top of a Bulrush and the further the effect of such proceedings does extend the worse they are the very making such a Law is unreasonable the inflicting spirituall censures upon them that cannot doe so much violence to their understanding as to obey it is unjust and ineffectuall but to punish the person with death or with corporall infliction indeed it is effectuall but it is therefore tyrannicall We have seen what the Church may doe towards restraining false or differing opinions next I shall consider by way of Corollarie what the Prince may doe as for his interest and onely in securing his people and serving the ends of true Religion SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions FOr upon these very grounds we may easily give account of Numb 1. that great question Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions For first it is a great fault that men will call the severall sects of Christians by the names of severall Religions The Religion of JESUS CHRIST is the forme of sound doctrine and wholsome words which is set downe in Scripture indefinitely actually conveyed to us by plaine places and separated as for the question of necessary or not necessary by the Symbol of the Apostles Those impertinencies which the wantonness and vanity of men hath commenced which their interests have promoted which serve not truth so much as their own ends are farre from being distinct Religions for matters of opinion are no parts of the worship of God nor in order to it but as they promote obedience to his Commandments and when they contribute towards it are in that proportion as they contribute parts and actions and minute particulars of that Religion to whose end they doe or pretend to serve And such are all the sects and all the pretences of Christians but pieces and minutes of Christianity if they doe serve the great end as every man for his owne sect and interest beleeves for his share it does 2. Tolleration hath a double sense or purpose for sometimes by it men understand a publick licence and exercise of a sect Sometimes it is onely an indemnity of the persons privately to convene and to opine as they see cause and as they meane to answer to God Both these are very much to the same purpose unlesse some persons whom we are bound to satisfie be scandaliz'd and then the Prince is bound to doe as he is bound to satisfie To God it is all one For abstracting from the offence of persons which is to be considered just as our obligation is to content the persons it is all one whether we indulge to them to meet publikely or privately to do actions of Religion concerning which we are not perswaded that they are truely holy To God it is just one to be in the dark and in the light the thing is the same onely the Circumstance of publick and private is different which cannot be concerned in any thing nor can it concerne any thing but the matter of Scandall and relation to the minds and fantasies of certaine persons 3. So that to tolerate is not to persecute And the question Numb 3. whether the Prince may tollerate divers perswasions is no more then whether he may lawfully persecute any man for not being of his opinion Now in this case he is just so to tollerate diversity of perswasions as he is to tolerate publike actions for no opinion is judicable nor no person punishable but for a sin and if his opinion by reason
persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their fore-Fathers which had actuall possession and seizure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name And so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophy and severe discourses and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding Secondly If we consider the Doctrines themselves we shall Numb 3. finde them to be superstructures ill built and worse manag'd but yet they keep the foundation they build upon God in Jesus Christ they professe the Apostles Creed they retain Faith and Repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven and believe many more truths then can be proved to be of simple and originall necessity to salvation And therefore all the wisest Personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vaine and unhandsome superstructures But then on the other side if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life or are consistent or inconsistent with civill Government we shall have other considerations Thirdly For I consider that many of their Doctrines doe Numb 4. accidentally teach or lead to ill life and it will appeare to any man that considers the result of these propositions Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sinne commenc'd upon any reason of temporall hope or feare or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of penance to receive absolution and be justified before God by taking away the guilt of all his sinnes and the obligation to eternall paines So that already the feare of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie that many men take more paines to get a groat then by this Doctrine we are oblig'd to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sinnes of a whole life of the most vitious person in the world And but that they affright their people with a feare of Purgatory or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venter for Purgatory for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sinne but then they have as easy a cure for that too with a little more charge sometimes but most commonly with lesse trouble For there are so many confraternities so many priviledged Churches Altars Monasteries Coemeteries Offices Festivals and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these and a thousand fine devices to take away the feare of Purgatory to commute or expiate Penances that in no sect of men doe they with more ease and cheapnesse reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of heaven then in the Roman Communion And indeed if men would consider things upon their true Numb 5. grounds the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that inferre ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith For false superstructures doe not alwayes destroy Faith but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater and stronger upon such points which are not usually considerd then it is upon the ordinary disputes which have to no very great purpose so much disturb'd Christendome And I am more scandaliz'd at her for teaching the sufficiency of Attrition in the Sacrament for indulging Penances so frequently for remitting all Discipline for making so great a part of Religon to consist in externalls and Ceremonialls for putting more force and Energy and exacting with more severity the commandments of men then the precepts of Justice and internall Religion Lastly besides many other things for promising heaven to persons after a wicked life upon their impertinent cryes and Ceremon all 's transacted by the Priest and the dying Person I confesse I wish the zeale of Christendome were a little more active against these and the like Doctrines and that men would write and live more earnestly against them then as yet they have done But then what influence this just zeale is to have upon the Numb 6. persons of the Professors is another consideration For as the Pharisees did preach well and lived ill and therefore were to be heard not imitated So if these men live well though they teach ill they are to be imitated not heard their Doctrines by all meanes Christian and humane are to be discountenanc'd but their persons tolerated eatenùs their Profession and Decrees to be rejected and condemn'd but the persons to be permitted because by their good lives they confute their Doctrines that is they give evidence that they think no evill to be consequent to such opinions and if they did that they live good lives is argument sufficient that they would themselves cast the first stone against their own opinions if they thought them guilty of such misdemeanours Fourthly But if we consider their Doctrines in relation to Numb 7. Government and Publick societies of men then if they prove faulty they are so much the more intolerable by how much the consequents are of greater danger and malice Such Doctrines as these The Pope may dispence with all oathes taken to God or man He may absolve Subjects from their Allegiance to their naturall Prince Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks Hereticall Princes may be slaine by their Subjects These Propositions are so deprest and doe so immediately communicate with matter and the interests of men that they are of the same consideration with matters of fact and are to be handled accordingly To other Doctrines ill life may be consequent but the connexion of the antecedent and the consequent is not peradventure perceiv'd or acknowledged by him that believes the opinion with no greater confidence then he disavowes the effect and issue of it But in these the ill effect is the direct profession and purpose of the opinion and therefore the man and the mans opinion is to be dealt withall just as the matter of fact is to be judg'd for it is an immediate a perceiv'd a direct event and the very purpose of the opinion Now these opinions are a direct overthrow to all humane society and mutuall commerce a destruction of Government and of the lawes and duty and subordination which we owe to Princes and therefore those men of the Church of Rome that doe hold them and preach them cannot pretend to the excuses of innocent opinions and
priviledge of an Apostolicall spirit not the nature of Angels not the condition of immortality can guard from the danger of sinne but if we be overrul'd by passion we almost subject our selves to its necessity It was not therefore without reason altogether that the Stoicks affirm'd wisemen to be void of passions for sure I am the inordination of any passion is the first step to folly And although of them as of waters of a muddy residence wee may make good use and quench our thirst if wee doe not trouble them yet upon any ungentle disturbance we drinke down mud in stead of a cleere streame and the issues of sinne and sorrow certaine consequents of temerarious or inordinate anger And therefore when the Apostle had given us leave to be angry as knowing the condition of human nature hee quickly enters a Caveat that we sinne not hee knew sinne was very likely to be hand-maid where Anger did domineer and this was the reason why S. Iames and S. Iohn are the men here pointed at for the Scripture notes them for Boanerges sonnes of thunder men of an angry temper quid mirum est filios tonitrui fulgurâsse voluisse said S. Ambrose But there was more in it then thus Their spirits of themselves hot enough yet met with their education under the Law whose first tradition was in fire and thunder whose precepts were just but not so mercifull and this inflam'd their distemper to the height of a revenge It is the Doctrine of S. a Epist. ad Algas Hierome and b in Lucam Titus Bostrensis The Law had beene their Schoole-master and taught them the rules of justice both Punitive and Vindictive But Christ was the first that taught it to be a sinne to retaliate evill with evill it was a Doctrine they could not read in the killing letter of the Law There they might meete with precedents of revenge and anger of a high severity an eye for an eye and a tooth for atooth and let him be cut off from his people But forgiving injuries praying for our persecutors loving our enemies and relieving them were Doctrines of such high and absolute integrity as were to be reserved for the best and most perfect Law-giver the bringer of the best promises to which the most perfect actions have the best proportion and this was to be when Shiloh came Now then the spirit of Elias is out of date I am ferrea primum Desinit ac toto surgit Gens Aurea Mundo And therefore our blessed Master reproveth them of ignorance not of the Law but of his spirit which had they but known or could but have guessed at the end of his comming they had not been such Abecedarij in the Schoole of Mercy And now we shall not need to look farre for persons Disciples professing at least in Christs schoole yet as great strangers to the mercifull spirit of our Saviour as if they had been sonnes of the Law or foster-brothers to Romulus and suck't a wolse and they are Romanists too this daies solemnity presents them to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet were that wash'd off underneath they write Christian and Iesuit One would have expected that such men set forth to the worlds acceptance with so mercifull a cognomentum should have put a hand to support the ruinous fabrick of the worlds charity and not have pulled the frame of heaven earth about our eares But yet Necredite Teucri Give me leave first to make an Inquisition after this Antichristian pravity and try who is of our side and who loves the King by pointing at those whose Sermons doe blast Loyalty breathing forth Treason slaughters and cruelty the greatest imaginable contrariety to the spirit and Doctrine of our Dear Master So we shall quickly finde out more then a pareil for S. Iames and S. Iohn the Boanerges of my Text. It is an act of faith by faith to conquer the enemies Sanderus de Clave David Lib. 2. c. 15. of God and Holy Church saith Sanders our Country-man Hitherto nothing but well If Iames and Iohn had offered to doe no more then what they could have done with the sword of the spirit and the shield of Faith they might have beene inculpable and so had he if hee had said no more but the blood boyles higher the manner spoyles all For it is not well done unlesse a warlike Captaine be appointed by Christs Vicar to beare a Croisade in a field of blood And if the other Apostles did not proceed such an angry way as Iames Iohn it was only discretion that detain'd them not religion For so they might and it were no Ibid. cap. 14. way unlawfull for them to beare armes to propagate Religion had they not wanted an opportunity if you believe the same author for fighting is proper for S. Peter and his Successors therefore because Christ gave him Commission to feed his Lambs A strange reason I had thought Christ would have his Lambes fed with the sincere milk of his word not like to Canibals solitisque cruentum Lac potare Getis pocula tingere venis To mingle blood in their sacrifices as Herod to the Galilaeans and quaffe it off for an auspicium to the propagation of the Christian faith Me thinks here is already too much clashing of armour and effusion of blood for a Christian cause but this were not altogether so unchristian-like if the sheepe though with blood yet were not to befed with the blood of their sheepheard Cyrus I meane their Princes But I finde many such Nutritij in the Nurseries of Rome driving their Lambes from their folds unlesse they will be taught to wory the Lion Tyrannicè gubernans iustè acquisitum dominium non potest spoliari sine publico iudicio Latâ verò sententiâ quisque potest fieri executor Potest autem à populo etiam qui iuravit ei obedientiam simonitus non vult corrigi Verb. Tyrannus Emanuel Sà in his Aphorismes affirmes it lawful to kill a King indeed not every King but such a one as rules with Tyranny and not then unlesse the Pope hath sentenc'd him to death but then he may though he be his lawfull Prince Not the necessitude which the Law of nations hath put betweene Prince and people not the obligation of the oath of Allegeance not the Sanctions of God Almighty himselfe must reverse the sentence against the King when once past but any one of his subjects of his owne sworne subjects may kill him This perfidious treasonable position of Sà is not a single Testimony For 1. it slipt not from his pen by inadvertency it was not made publique untill after Praesertim cum in hoc opus per annos serè quadraginta diligentissime incubuerim forty yeares deliberation as himselfe testifies in his Preface 2. After such an avisamente it is now the ordinary receiv'd manuall for the Fathers Confessors of the Iesuits Order This Doctrine although Titulo res
Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like Councell in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Sonne Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessefull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert D. of Savoy repenting of his warre undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arrians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practise till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empresse Irene who put her Sonnes eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruell as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coales to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affaire in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Iustinian the Emperour A. D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome it selfe but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I at the same instant the Gothes invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true beliefe who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds doe persecute an errour lesse materiall in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common faith And I have heard it observ'd as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice chang'd his mind yet to Tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the secular power to be kild that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he dyed and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come and yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arrians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himselfe to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Iustinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons but as yet it came not so farre as death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted only to the Friers of his Order and if there be any force in dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mothers dreame who the night before Dominick was born dream'd she was brought to Bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his disciples expound the dreame it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in this Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom hee so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before B. Bruno Berengarianes è suâ diocesi expulit non morti aut suppliciis corporalibus tradidit Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they cald Heresy and recanted and relapsed and recanted againe and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died siccâ morte his own naturall death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his judge which shewes that at that time Rome was not come to so great heigths of bloodshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any where yet there were no Executions for matter of opinion known till the time of Henry the Fourth who because he Usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endeare the Clergy by destroying their Enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the pollicies of evill persons but never the pure and chaste designs of Christianity which admits no blood but Christs and the imitating blood of Martyrs but knowes nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unlesse so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny Popery and Faction did teach indifferency for I have shewn that Christianity does not punish corporally persons erring spiritually but indeed Popery does The Donatists and Circumcellians and Arrians and the Itaciani they of old did In the middle Ages the Patrons of Images did and the Papists at this day doe and have done ever since they were taught it by their S. Dominick Seventhly And yet after all this I have something more to exempt my selfe from the clamour of this Objection For let all errours be as much and as zealously suppressed as may be the Doctrine of the following Discourse contradicts not that but let it be done by such meanes as are proper instruments of their suppression by Preaching and Disputation so that neither of them breed disturbance by charity and sweetnesse by holinesse of life assiduity of exhortation by
the word of God and prayer For these wayes are most naturall most prudent most peaceable and effectuall Only let not men be hasty in calling every dislik'd opinion by the name of Heresy and when they have resolved that they will call it so let them use the erring person like a brother not beat him like a dog or convince him with a gibbet or vex him out of his understanding and perswasions And now if men will still say I perswade to indifferency there is no help for me for I have given reasons against it I must beare it as well as I can I am not yet without remedy as they are for patience will help me and reason will not cure them let them take their course and He take mine Only I will take leave to consider this and they would doe well to doe so too that unlesse Faith be kept within its own latitude and not cald out to patrocinate every lesse necessary opinion and the interest of every Sect or peevish person and if damnation be pronounced against Christians believing the Creed and living good lives because they are deceived or are said to be deceived in some opinions lesse necessary there is no way in the world to satisfie unlearned persons in the choice of their Religion or to appease the unquietnesse of a scrupulous conscience For suppose an honest Citizen whose imployment and parts will not enable him to judge the disputes and arguings of great Clerks sees factions commenced and managed with much bitternesse by persons who might on either hand be fit enough to guide him when if he follows either he is disquieted and pronounced damned by the other who also if he be the most unreasonable in his opinion will perhaps be more furious in his sentence what shall this man doe where shall he rest the sole of his foot Upon the Doctrine of the Church where he lives Well! but that he heares declaimed against perpetually and other Churches claime highly and pretend fairely for truth and condemne his Church If I tell him that he must live a good life and believe the Creed and not trouble himselfe with their disputes or interesting himselfe in Sects and Factions I speak reason Because no law of God ties him to believe more then what is of essentiall necessity and whatsoever he shall come to know to be reveal'd by God Now if he believes his Creed he believes all that is necessary to all or of it selfe and if he doe his morall endeavour beside he can doe no more toward finding out all the rest and then he is secured but then if this will secure him why doe men presse further and pretend every opinion as necessary and that in so high degree that if they all said true or any two indeed of them in 500 Sects which are in the world and for ought I know there may be 5000 it is 500 to one but that every man is damn'd for every Sect damnes all but it selfe and that is damn'd of 499 and it is excellent fortune then if that escape and there is the same reason in every one of them that is it is extreme unreasonablenesse in all of them to pronounce damnation against such persons against whom clearely and dogmatically holy Scripture hath not In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur in favoribus quod est maximum saith the Law and therefore we should say any thing or make any excuse that is in any degree reasonable rather then condemn all the world to Hell especially if we consider these two things that we our selves are as apt to be deceived as any are and that they who are deceived when they used their morall industry that they might not be deceived if they perish for this they perish for what they could not help But however if the best security in the world be not in neglecting all Sects and subdivisions of men and fixing our selves on points necessary and plain and on honest and pious endeavours according to our severall capacities and opportunities for all the rest if I say all this be not through the mercies of God the best security to all unlearned persons and learned too where shall we fix where shall we either have peace or security If you bid me follow your Doctrine you must tell me why and perhaps when you have I am not able to judge or if I be as able as other people are yet when I have judged I may be deceived too and so may you or any man else you bid me follow so that I am no whit the nearer truth or peace And then if we look abroad and consider how there is scarce any Church but is highly charg'd by many Adversaries in many things possibly we may see a reason to charge every one of them in some things And what shall we do then The Church of Rome hath spots enough and all the world is inquisitive enough to find out more and to represent these to her greatest disadvantage The Greek Church denies the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son If that be false Doctrine she is highly too blame if it be not then all the Western Churches are too blame for saying the contrary And there is no Church that is in prosperity but alters her Doctrine every Age either by bringing in new Doctrines or by contradicting her old which shewes that none are satisfied with themselves or with their own confessions And since all Churches believe themselves fallible that only excepted which all other Churches say is most of all deceived it were strange if in so many Articles which make up their severall bodies of Confessions they had not mistaken every one of them in something or other The Lutheran Churches maintaine Consubstantiation the Zuinglians are Sacramentaries the Calvinists are fierce in the matters of absolute Predetermination and all these reject Episcopacy which the Primitive Church would have made no doubt to have called Heresy The Socinians professe a portentous number of strange opinions they deny the holy Trinity and the satisfaction of our blessed Saviour The Anabaptists laugh at Paedo-baptism The Ethiopian Churches are Nestorian where then shall we fix our confidence or joyn Communion to pitch upon any one of these is to throw the dice if salvation be to be had only in one of them and that every errour that by chance hath made a Sect and is distinguished by a name be damnable If this consideration does not deceive me we have no other help in the midst of these distractions and dis-unions but all of us to be united in that common terme which as it does constitute the Church in its being such so it is the medium of the Communion of Saints and that is the Creed of the Apostles and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out * Clem. Alex. stromat 1. ait Philosophiam liberam esse praestantissimam quae scil versatur in perspicaciter seligendis dogmatis omnium Sectarum
God and lives as contrary to the Lawes of Christianity as a Heretick and I am also sure that I know what drunkennesse is but I am not sure that such an opinion is Heresy neither would other men be so sure as they think for if they did consider it aright and observe the infinite deceptions and causes of deceptions in wise men and in most things and in all doubtfull Questions and that they did not mistake confidence for certainty But indeed I could not but smile at those jolly Fryers two Franciscans offered themselves to the fire to prove Savonarola to be a Heretick but a certaine Iacobine offered himselfe to Commin l. 8. c. 19. the fire to prove that Savonarola had true Revelations and was no Heretick in the meane time Savonarola preacht but made no such confident offer not durst he venture at that new kind of fire Ordeal and put case all four had past through the fire and dyed in the flames what would that have proved Had he been a Heretick or no Heretick the more or the lesse for the confidence of these Zealous Ideots If we mark it a great many Arguments whereon many Sects rely are no better probation then this comes to Confidence is the first and the second and the third part of a very great many of their propositions But now if men would a little turn the Tables and be as zealous for a good life and all the strictest precepts of Christianity which is a Religion the most holy the most reasonable and the most consummate that ever was taught to man as they are for such propositions in which neither the life nor the ornament of Christianity is concerned we should find that as a consequent of this piety men would be as carefull as they could to find out all truths and the sense of all revelations which may concern their duty and where men were miserable and could not yet others that liv'd good lives too would also be so charitable as not to adde affliction to this misery and both of them are parts of good life to be compassionate and to help to beare one anothers burdens not to destroy the weak but to entertain him meekly that 's a precept of charity and to endeavour to find out the whole will of God that also is a part of the obedience the choyce and the excellency of Faith and hee lives not a good life that does not doe both these But men think they have more reason to bee zealous against Heresy then against a vice in manners because Heresy is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evill Indeed if by a Heresy we mean that which is against an Article of Creed and breaks part of the Covenant made between God and man by the mediation of Jesus Christ I grant it to be a very grievous crime a calling Gods veracity into question and a destruction also of good life because upon the Articles of Creed obedience is built and it lives or dies as the effect does by its proper cause for Faith is the morall cause of obedience But then Heresy that is such as this is also a vice and the person criminall and so the sin is to be esteem'd in its degrees of malignity and let men be as zealous against it as they can and imploy the whole arsenall of the spirituall armour against it such as this is worse then adultery or murther in as much as the soule is more noble then the body and a false doctrine is of greater dissemination and extent then a single act of violence or impurity Adultery or murder is a duell but Heresy truly and indeed such is an unlawfull warre it slayes thousands The loosing of Faith is like digging down a foundation all the superstructures of hope and patience and charity fall with it And besides this Heresy of all crimes is the most inexcusable and of least temptation for true faith is most commonly kept with the least trouble of any grace in the world and Heresy of it selfe hath not only no pleasure in it but is a very punishment because faith as it opposes hereticall or false opinions and distinguishes from charity consists in meare acts of believing which because they are of true propositions are naturall and proportionable to the understanding and more honourable then false But then concerning those things which men now adayes call Heresy they cannot be so formidable as they are represented and if we consider that drunkennesse is certainly a damnable sin and that there are more Drunkards then Hereticks and that drunkennesse is parent of a thousand vices it may better bee said of this vice then of most of those opinions which we call Heresies it is infectious and dangerous and the principle of much evill and therefore as fit an object for a pious zeale to contest against as is any of those opinions which trouble mens ease or reputation for that is the greatest of their malignity But if we consider that Sects are made and opinions are called Heresies upon interest and the grounds of emolument we shall see that a good life would cure much of this mischiefe For first the Church of Rome which is the great dictatrix of dogmaticall resolutions and the declarer of Heresy and calls Heretick more then all the world besides hath made that the rule of Heresy which is the conservatory of interest and the ends of men For to recede from the Doctrine of the Church with them makes Heresy that is to disrepute their Authority and not to obey them not to be their subjects not to give them the Empire of our conscience is the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Heresy So that with them Heresy is to be esteemed clearely by humane ends not by Divine Rules that is formall Heresy which does materially disserve them and it would make a suspicious man a little inquisitive into their particular Doctrins and when hee finds that Indulgences and Jubilies and Purgatories and Masses and Offices for the dead are very profitable that the Doctrine of primacy of infallibility of superiority over Councels of indirect power in temporals are great instruments of secular honour would be apt enough to think that if the Church of Rome would learn to lay her honour at the feet of the Crucifix and despise the world and preferre Ierusalem before Rome and Heaven above the Lateran that these opinions would not have in them any native strength to support them against the perpetuall assaults of their Adversaries that speak so much reason and Scripture against them I have instanced in the Roman Religion but I wish it may be considered also how farre mens Doctrines in other Sects serve mens temporall ends so farre that it would not bee unreasonable or unnecessary to attempt to cure some of their distemperatures or misperswasions by the salutary precepts of sanctity and holy life Sure enough if it did not more concern their reputation and their lasting interest
For others I shall be incurious because the number of them that honour you is the same with them that honour Learning and Piety and they are the best Theatre and the best judges amongst which the world must needs take notice of my ambition to be ascribed by my publike pretence to be what I am in all heartinesse of Devotion and for all the reason of the world My Honour'd Lord Your Lordships most faithfull and most affectionate servant J. TAYLOR The Contents of the Sections SECTION I. OF the Nature of Faith and that its duty is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed Pag. 5. SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons pag. 18. SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined pag. 59. SECT IV. Of the difficulty of Expounding Scripture pag. 73. SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine Questions pag. 83. SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councels Ecclesiasticall to the same purpose pag. 101. SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions pag. 125. SECT VIII Of the disability of Fathers or Writers Ecclesiasticall to determine our Questions with certainty and Truth pag. 151. SECT IX Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be Iudge of Controversies and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit pag. 161. SECT X. Of the authority of Reason and that it proceeding upon the best grounds is the best judge pag. 165. SECT XI Of some causes of Errour in the exercise of Reason which are inculpate in themselves pag. 171. SECT XII Of the innocency of Errour in opinion in a pious person pag. 184. SECT XIII Of the deportment to be used towards persons disagreeing and the reasons why they are not to be punished with death c. pag. 189. SECT XIIII Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons disagreeing and when Persecution first came in pag. 203. SECT XV. How farre the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions pag. 210. SECT XVI Whether it be lawfull for a Prince to give toleration to severall Religions pag. 213. SECT XVII Of compliance with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in generall pag. 217. SECT XVIII A particular consideration of the Opinions of the Anabaptists pag. 223 SECT XIX That there may be no Toleration of Doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publique good pag. 246. SECT XX. How farre the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable pag. 249. SECT XXI Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion pag. 262. SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how farre they may doe it pag. 264. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 OF THE LIBERTY OF PROPHESYING THe infinite variety of Opinions in matters of Religion as they have troubled Christendome with interests factions and partialities so have they caused great divisions of the heart and variety of thoughts and designes amongst pious and prudent men For they all seeing the inconveniences which the dis-union of perswasions and Opinions have produced directly or accidentally have thought themselves obliged to stop this inundation of mischiefes and have made attempts accordingly But it hath hapned to most of them as to a mistaken Physitian who gives excellent physick but mis-applies it and so misses of his cure so have these men their attempts have therefore been ineffectuall for they put their help to a wrong part or they have endeavoured to cure the symptomes and have let the disease alone till it seem'd incurable Some have endeavoured to re-unite these fractions by propounding such a Guide which they were all bound to follow hoping that the Unity of a Guide would have perswaded unity of mindes but who this Guide should be at last became such a Question that it was made part of the fire that was to be quenched so farre was it from extinguishing any part of the flame Others thought of a Rule and this must be the meanes of Union or nothing could doe it But supposing all the World had been agreed of this Rule yet the interpretation of it was so full of variety that this also became part of the disease for which the cure was pretended All men resolv'd upon this that though they yet had not hit upon the right yet some way must be thought upon to reconcile differences in Opinion thinking so long as this variety should last Christ's Kingdome was not advanced and the work of the Gospel went on but slowly Few men in the mean time considered that so long as men had such variety of principles such severall constitutions educations tempers and distempers hopes interests and weaknesses degrees of light and degrees of understanding it was impossible all should be of one minde And what is impossible to be done is not necessary it should be done And therefore although variety of Opinions was impossible to be cured and they who attempted it did like him who claps his shoulder to the ground to stop an earth-quake yet the inconveniences arising from it might possibly be cured not by uniting their beliefes that was to be dispaird of but by curing that which caus'd these mischiefes and accidentall inconveniences of their disagreeings For although these inconveniences which every man sees and feeles were consequent to this diversity of perswasions yet it was but accidentally and by chance in as much as wee see that in many things and they of great concernment men alow to themselves and to each other a liberty of disagreeing and no hurt neither And certainely if diversity of Opinions were of it selfe the cause of mischiefes it would be so ever that is regularly and universally but that we see it is not For there are disputes in Christendome concerning matters of greater concernment then most of those Opinions that distinguish Sects and make factions and yet because men are permitted to differ in those great matters such evills are not consequent to such differences as are to the uncharitable managing of smaller and more inconsiderable Questions It is of greater consequence to believe right in the Question of the validity or invalidity of a death-bed repentance then to believe aright in the Question of Purgatory and the consequences of the Doctrine of Predetermination are of deeper and more materiall consideration then the products of the beliefe of the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of private Masses and yet these great concernments where a liberty of Prophecying in these Questions hath been permitted hath made no distinct Communion no sects of Christians and the others have and so have these too in those places where they have peremptorily been determind on either side Since then if men are
inculpably both on their own and their Parents part they misse of baptism for that is the doctrine of the Church of Rome which they learnt from S. Austin and others also doe from hence baptize Infants though with a lesse opinion of its absolute necessity And yet the same manner of precept in the same forme of words in the same manner of threatning by an exclusive negative shall not enjoyn us to communicate Infants though damnation at least in forme of words be exactly and per omnia alike appendant to the neglect of holy Baptism and the venerable Eucharist If nisi quis renatus shall conclude against the Anabaptist for necessity of baptizing Infants as sure enough we say it does why shall not an equall nisi comederitis bring Infants to the holy Communion The Primitive Church for some two whole Ages did follow their own principles where ever they lead them and seeing that upon the same ground equall results must follow they did Communicate Infants as soon as they had baptized them And why the Church of Rome should not doe so too being she expounds nisi comederitis of orall manducation I cannot yet learn a reason And for others that expound it of a spirituall manducation why they shall not allow the disagreeing part the same liberty of expounding nisi quis renatus too I by no meanes can understand And in these cases no externall determiner can bee pretended in answer For whatsoever is extrinsecall to the words as Councels Tradition Church Authority and Fathers either have said nothing at all or have concluded by their practise contrary to the present opinion as is plaine in their communicating Infants by vertue of nisi comederitis 5. I shall not need to urge the mysteriousnesse of some points in Scripture which ex natura rei are hard to be understood Numb 8. though very plainly represented For there are some secreta Theologiae which are only to be understood by persons very holy and spirituall which are rather to be felt then discoursed of and therefore if peradventure they be offered to publike consideration they will therefore be opposed because they runne the same fortune with many other Questions that is not to be understood and so much the rather because their understanding that is the feeling such secrets of the Kingdome are not the results of Logick and Philosophy nor yet of publike revelation but of the publike spirit privately working and in no man is a duty but in all that have it is a reward and is not necessary for all but given to some producing its operations not regularly but upon occasions personall necessities and new emergencies Of this nature are the spirit of obsignation beliefe of particular salvation speciall influences and comforts comming from a sense of the spirit of adoption actuall fervours and great complacencies in devotion spirituall joyes which are little drawings aside of the curtaines of peace and eternity and antepasts of immortality But the not understanding the perfect constitution and temper of these mysteries and it is hard for any man so to understand as to make others doe so too that feele them not is cause that in many Questions of secret Theology by being very apt and easy to be mistaken there is a necessity in forbearing one another and this consideration would have been of good use in the Question between Soto and Catharinus both for the preservation of their charity and explication of the mystery 6. But here it will not be unseasonable to consider that Numb 9. all systems and principles of science are expressed so that either by reason of the Universality of the termes and subject matter or the infinite variety of humane understandings and these peradventure swayed by interest or determin'd by things accidentall and extrinsecall they seem to divers men nay to the same men upon divers occasions to speak things extremly disparate and sometimes contrary but very often of great variety And this very thing happens also in Scripture that if it were not in re sacrâ seria it were excellent sport to observe how the same place of Scripture serves severall turns upon occasion and they at that time believe the words sound nothing else whereas in the liberty of their judgement and abstracting from that occasion their Commentaries understand them wholy to a differing sense It is a wonder of what excellent use to the Church of Rome is tibi dabo claves It was spoken to Peter and none else sometimes and therefore it concerns him and his Successors only the rest are to derive from him And yet if you Question them for their Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution then tibi dabo claves comes in and that was spoken to S. Peter and in him to the whole Colledge of the Apostles and in them to the whole Hierarchy If you question why the Pope pretends to free soules from Purgatory tibi dabo claves is his warrant but if you tell him the Keyes are only for binding and loosing on Earth directly and in Heaven consequently and that Purgatory is a part of Hell or rather neither Earth nor Heaven nor Hell and so the Keyes seem to have nothing to doe with it then his Commission is to be enlarged by a suppletory of reason and consequences and his Keyes shall unlock this difficulty for it is clavis scientiae as well as authoritatis And these Keyes shall enable him to expound Scriptures infallibly to determine Questions to preside in Councels to dictate to all the World Magisterially to rule the Church to dispence with Oaths to abrogate Lawes And if his Key of knowledge will not the Key of Authority shall and tibi dabo claves shall answer for all We have an instance in the single fancy of one man what rare variety of matter is afforded from those plain words of Oravi pro te Petre Luk. 22. for that place sayes Bellarmine is otherwise to be understood of Peter otherwise of the Popes and otherwise of the Church of Rome And pro te Bellar. lib. 1. de Pontif. c. 3. § respondeo primò signifies that Christ prayed that Peter might neither erre personally nor judicially and that Peters Successors if they did erre personally might not erre judicially and that the Roman Church might not erre personally All this variety of sense is pretended by the fancy of one man to be in a few words which are as plain and simple as are any words in Scripture And what then in those thousands that are intricate So is done with pasce oves which a man would think were a commission as innocent and guiltlesse of designs as the sheep in the folds are But if it be asked why the Bishop of Rome calls himselfe Universall Bishop pasce oves is his warrant Why he pretends to a power of deposing Princes Pasce oves said Christ to Peter the second time If it be demanded why also he pretends to a power of authorizing his
temporall felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon sayes it was the beliefe of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet there was no such Tradition but a mistake in Papias but I find it nowhere spoke against till Dionysins of Alexandria confuted Nepo's Book and converted Coracion the Egyptian from the opinion Now if a Tradition whose beginning of being called so began with a Scholar of the Apostles for so was Papias and then continued for some Ages upon the meer Authority of so famous a man did yet deceive the Church much more fallible is the pretence when two or three hundred years after it but commences and then by some learned man is first called a Tradition Apostolicall And so it hapned in the case of the Arrian heresy which the Nicene Fathers did confute by objecting a contrary Tradition Apostolicall as Theodoret reports Lib. 1. hist. c. 8. and yet if they had not had better Arguments from Scripture then from Tradition they would have faild much in so good a cause for this very pretence the Arrians themselves made and desired to be tryed by the Fathers of the first three hundred years which was a confutation sufficient to them who pretended Vide Petaâ— in Epiph. her 69. a clear Tradition because it was unimaginable that the Tradition should leap so as not to come from the first to the last by the middle But that this tryall was sometime declined by that excellent man S. Athanasius although at other times confidently and truly pretended it was an Argument the Tradition was not so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. diâ—l ad Tryph. Iud. clear but both sides might with some fairnesse pretend to it And therefore one of the prime Founders of their heresy the Heretick †Euse. l. 5. c. ult Artemon having observed the advantage might be taken by any Sect that would pretend Tradition because the medium was plausible and consisting of so many particulars that it was hard to be redargued pretended a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that the Tradition did descend by a constant succession in the Church of Rome to Pope Victors time inclusively and till Zepherinus had interrupted the series and corrupted the Doctrine which pretence if it had not had some appearance of truth so as possibly to abuse the Church had not been worthy of confutation which yet was with care undertaken by an old Writer out of whom Eusebius transcribes a large passage to reprove the vanity of the pretender But I observe from hence that it was usuall to pretend to Tradition and that it was easier pretended then confuted and I doubt not but oftner done then discovered A great Question arose in Africa concerning the Baptism of Hereticks whether it were valid or no. S. Cyprian and his party appealed to Scripture Stephen Bishop of Rome and his party would be judged by custome and Tradition Ecclesiasticall See how much the nearer the Question was to a determination either that probation was not accounted by S. Cyprian and the Bishops both of Asia and Africk to be a good Argument and sufficient to determine them or there was no certain Tradition against them for unlesse one of these two doe it nothing could excuse them from opposing a known truth unlesse peradventure S. Cyprian Firmilian the Bishops of Galatia Cappadocia and almost two parts of the World were ignorant of such a Tradition for they knew of none such and some of them expresly denyed it And the sixth generall Synod approves of the Canon made in the Councell of Carthage under Cyprian upon this very ground because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundum Can. 2. traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est they had a particular Tradition for Rebaptization and therefore there could be no Tradition Universall against it or if there were they knew not of it but much for the contrary and then it would be remembred that a conceal'd Tradition was like a silent Thunder or a Law not promulgated it neither was known nor was obligatory And I shall observe this too that this very Tradition was so obscure and was so obscurely delivered silently proclaimed that S. Austin who disputed against the Donatists upon this very Question was not able to prove it but L. 5. de baptism contr Donat. c. 23. by a consequence which he thought probale and credible as appears in his discourse against the Donatists The Apostles saith S. Austin prescrib'd nothing in this particular But this custome which is contrary to Cyprian ought to be believed to have come from their Tradition as many other things which the Catholike Church observes That 's all the ground and all the reason nay the Church did waver concerning that Question and before the decision of a Councell Cyprian and others might dissent without breach of charity It was plain then there was no clear Tradition Lib. 1. de baptism c. 18. in the Question possibly there might be a custome in some Churches postnate to the times of the Apostles but nothing that was obligatory no Tradition Apostolicall But this was a suppletory device ready at hand when ever they needed it and De peccat original l. 2. c. 40. contra Pelagi Caelest S. Austin confuted the Pelagians in the Question of Originall sinne by the custome of exorcisme and insufflation which S. Austin said came from the Apostles by Tradition which yet was then and is now so impossible to be prov'd that he that shall affirm it shall gaine only the reputation of a bold man and a confident 2. I consider if the report of Traditions in the Primitive Numb 4. times so neare the Ages Apostolicall was so uncertain that they were fain to aym at them by conjectures and grope as in the dark the uncertainty is much encreased since because there are many famous Writers whose works are lost which yet if they had continued they might have been good records to us as Clemens Romanus Egesippus Nepos Coracion Dionysius Areopagite of Alexandria of Corinth Firmilian and many more And since we see pretences have been made without reason in those Ages where they might better have been confuted then now they can it is greater prudence to suspect any later pretences since so many Sects have been so many warres so many corruptions in Authors so many Authors lost so much ignorance hath intervened and so many interests have been served that now the rule is to be altered and whereas it was of old time credible that that was Apostolicall whose beginning they
trust the actions of any unlesse he had the keeping the Records himselfe or durst swear for the Register And if a very learned man as Thomas Aquinas was did either wilfully deceive us or was himselfe ignorantly abused in Allegation of a Canon which was not it is but a very fallible Topick at the best and the most holy man that is may be abused himselfe and the wisest may deceive others 6. And lastly To all this and to the former instances by way of Corollary I adde some more particulars in which it is notorious Numb 10. that Councels Generall and Nationall that is such as were either Generall by Originall or by adoption into the Canon of the Catholike Church did erre and were actually deceived The first Councell of Toledo admits to the Communion him that hath a Concubine so he have no wife besides and this Councell is approved by Pope Leo in the 92 Epistle to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Gratian sayes that the Councell meanes by a Concubine a wife married sine dote solennitate but this is Dist. 34. can omnibus dawbing with untemper'd mortar For though it was a custome amongst the Jewes to distinguish Wives from their Concubines by Dowry and legall Solennities yet the Christian distinguished them no otherwise then as lawfull and unlawfull then as Chastity and Fornication And besides if by a Concubine is meant a lawfull wife without a Dowry to what purpose should the Councell make a Law that such a one might be admitted to the Communion for I suppose it was never thought to be a Law of Christianity that a man should have a Portion with his Wife nor he that married a poore Virgin should deserve to be Excommunicate So that Gratian and his Followers are prest so with this Canon that to avoid the impiety of it they expound it to a signification without sense or purpose But the businesse then was that Adultery was so publike and notorious a practise that the Councell did chuse rather to endure simple Fornication that by such permission of a lesse they might slacken the publike custome of a greater just as at Rome they permit Stewes to prevent unnaturall sinnes But that by a publike sanction Fornicators habitually and notoriously such should be admitted to the holy Communion was an act of Priests so unfit for Priests that no excuse can make it white or cleane The Councell of Wormes does authorize a superstitious custome at that time too much used of Cap. 3. discovering stoln goods by the holy Sacrament which a Part. 3. q 80. a. 6. ad 3 m. Aquinas justly condemns for Superstition The b Can. 72. sixth Synod separates persons lawfully married upon an accusation and crime of heresy The Roman Councell under c Can ego Berengar de consecrat dist 2. Pope Nicholas II. defin'd that not only the Sacrament of Christs body but the very body it selfe of our blessed Saviour is handled and broke by the hands of the Priest and chewed by the teeth of the Communicants which is a manifest errour derogatory from the truth of Christs beatificall Resurrection and glorification in the Heavens and disavowed by the Church of Rome it selfe But Bellarmine that answers all the Arguments in the world whither it be possible or not possible would faine make the Lib. 2. c. 8. de Concil matter faire and the Decree tolerable for sayes he the Decree meanes that the body is broken not in it selfe but in the sign and yet the Decree sayes that not only the Sacrament which if any thing be is certainly the sign but the very body it selfe is broken and champed with hands and teeth respectively which indeed was nothing but a plaine over-acting the Article in contradiction to Berengarius And the answer of Bellarmine is not sense for he denies that the body it selfe is broken in it selfe that was the errour we charg'd upon the Roman Synod and the sign abstracting from the body is not broken for that was the opinion that Councell condemn'd in Berengarius but sayes Bellarmine the body in the sign What 's that for neither the sign nor the body nor both together are broken For if either of them distinctly they either rush upon the errour which the Roman Synod condemn'd in Berengarius or upon that which they would fain excuse in Pope Nicholas but if both are broken then 't is true to affirm it of either and then the Councell is blasphemous in saying that Christ's glorified body is passible and frangible by naturall manducation So that it is and it is not it is not this way and yet it is no way else but it is some way and they know not how and the Councell spoke blasphemy but it must be made innocent and therefore it was requisite a cloud of a distinction should be raised that the unwary Reader might be amused and the Decree scape untoucht but the truth is they that undertake to justifie all that other men say must be more subtle then they that said it and must use such distinctions which possibly the first Authors did not understand But I will multiply no more instances for what instance soever I shall bring some or other will be answering it which thing is so farre from satisfying me in the particulars that it increases the difficulty in the generall and satisfies me in my first beliefe For * Illa demùm cis videntur edicta Concilia quae in rem suam faciunt reliqua non pluris aestimant quam conventum muliercularum in textrinâ vel thermis Ludo. Vives in Scholiis lib. 20. Aug. de Civit. Dei c. 26. if no Decrees of Councels can make against them though they seeme never so plain against them then let others be allowed the same liberty and there is all the reason in the world they should and no Decree shall conclude against any Doctrine that they have already entertain'd and by this meanes the Church is no fitter instrument to Decree Controversies then the Scripture it selfe there being as much obscurity and disputing in the sense and the manner and the degree and the competency and the obligation of the Decree of a Councell as of a place of Scripture And what are we the nearer for a Decree if any Sophister shall think his elusion enough to contest against the Authority of a Councell yet this they doe that pretend highest for their Authority which consideration or some like it might possibly make Gratian preferre S. Hierom's single 36. q. 2. c. placuit Testimony before a whole Councell because hee had Scripture of his side which sayes that the Authority of Councels is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that Councels may possibly recede from their Rule from Scripture and in that case a single person proceeding according to Rule is a better Argument which indeed was the saying of Panormitan in concernentibus Part. 1. de election Et elect potest cap. significant
not of weight and Authority to restraine their Liberty so wholy but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to perswade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions BUt since the Question between the Councell and the Pope Numb 1. grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Popes behalfe as to believe Generall Councels to be nothing but Pompes and Solennities of the Catholike Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeale from the Pope to a future Councell is a heresy yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II and therefore it concerns us now Epist. ad Norimberg to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II while he was the wise and learned Patrum avorum nostrorum tempore pauci audebant dicere Papam esse supra Concilium l. 1. de gestis Concil Basil. Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preheminence of a Councell and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Councell though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councels give none and yet as soone as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peters Chaire which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a Generall Councell But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universall and the infallible Doctor that he breathes Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedrall determinations is absolute heresy the Rule of Faith being nothing else but consormity to the Chaire of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complaine that his choyce is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himselfe And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to find it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be cozened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plaine then the Commission given to Peter Numb 2. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keyes And again for thee have I prayed that thy faith faile not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and inabled with an infallible power so to doe And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chaire of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peters Successors as to his Person that must by all meanes be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said a Irenae contra haeres l. 3. c. 3. To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene ..... In this Tradition Apostolicall alwayes was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this * Ambr. de obitu Salyri l. 1. Ep. 4. ad Imp. Cypr. Ep. 52. Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholike .... b Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Cornel. To this Church errour or perfidiousnesse cannot have accesse .... c S. Austin in Psal. contra partem Donat. Against this Sea the gates of Hell cannot prevaile .... d Hieron Ep. 57. ad Damasum For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock .... And whoever eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his finall sentence But if you would have all this prov'd by an infallible Argument e L. 2. contra Parmenian Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholike Church Dignum patellà operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions or the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomely laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 1. Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater Numb 3. prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ pray'd for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did meane to constitute a Church that his faith
against their Adversaries and for the truth and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the Question in his Chaire Certaindly no way coud have been so expedite none so concluding and peremptory none could have convinc'd so certainly none could have triumph'd so openly over all discrepants as this if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the Judge of Controversies And therefore I will not trouble this discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to this purpose of the Pope for they would but make books swell and the Question endlesse I shall only to this purpose observe that the Old Writers were so farre from believing the infallibility of the Roman Church or Bishop that many Bishops and many Churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman Communion particularly * Vbi illa Augustini reliquorum prudentia quis jam ferat crassissimae ignorantiae illam vocem in tot tantis Patribus Alan Cop. dialog p. 76 77. Vide etiam Bonifac. 11. Epist ad Eulalium Alexandrinum Lindanum Panopli l. 4. c. 89. in fine Sa'meron Tom. 12. Tract 68. § ad Canonem Sander de visibili Monarchia l. 7. n. 411. Baron Tom. 10. A. D. 878. S. Austin who with 217 Bishops and their Successors for 100 years together stood separate from that Church if we may believe their own Records So did Ignatius of Constantinople S. Chrysostome S. Cyprian Firmilian those Bishops of Asia that separated in the Question of Easter and those of Africa in the Question of rebaptization But besides this most of them had opinions which the Church of Rome disavowes now and therefore did so then or else she hath innovated in her Doctrine which though it be most true and notorious I am sure she will never confesse But no excuse can be made for S. Austins disagreeing and contesting in the Question of appeales to Rome the necessity of Communicating Infants the absolute damnation of Infants to the paines of Hell if they die before Baptism and divers other particulars It was a famous act of the Bishops of Liguria and Istria who seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth Synod in disparagement of the famous Councell of Chalcedon which for their own interests they did not like of they renounced subjection to his Patriarchate and erected a Patriarch at Aquileia who was afterwards translated to Venice where his name remaines to this day It is also notorious that most of the Fathers were of opinion that the soules of the faithfull did not enjoy the beatifick Vision before Doomesday whether Rome was then of that opinion or no I know not I am sure now they are not witnesse the Councels of Florence and Trent but of this I shall give a more full account afterwards But if to all this which is already noted we adde that great variety of opinions amongst the Fathers and Councels in assignation of the Canon they not consulting with the Bishop of Rome nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his Rule in enumeration of the books of Scripture I think no more need to be said as to this particular 8. But now if after all this there be some Popes which were notorious Hereticks and Preachers of false Doctrine some that Numb 15. made impious Decrees both in faith and manners some that have determin'd Questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity some with apparent Sophistry and many to serve their own ends most openly I suppose then the infallibility will disband and we may doe to him as to other good Bishops believe him when there is cause but if there be none then to use our Consciences Non enim salvat Christianum quod Pontifex Tract de interdict Compos à Theol. Venet. prop. 13. constantèr affirmat praeceptum suum esse justum sed oportet illud examinari se juxta regulam superius datum dirigere I would not instance and repeat the errours of dead Bishops if the extreme boldnesse of the pretence did not make it necessary But if we may believe Tertullian Pope Zepherinus approv'd the Lib. adver Praxeam Prophecies of Montanus and upon that approbation granted peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia till Praxeas perswaded him to revoke his act But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no some such thing there was for certain Pope Vigilius denyed Vid. Liberal in breviatio cap. 22. Durand 4. dist 7. q. 4. two natures in Christ and in his Epistle to Theodora the Empresse anathematiz'd all them that said he had two natures in one person S. Gregory himselfe permitted Priests to give confirmation which is all one as if he should permit Deacons to consecrate they being by Divine Ordinance annext to the higher orders and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may erre in definiendis dogmatibus fidei And that we may not feare we shall want instances we may to secure it Quae. de confirm art ult take their own confession Nam multae sunt decretales haereticae sayes Occham as he is cited by Almain firmitèr hoc credo 3. dist 24. q. unica sayes he for his own particular sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum quoniam sunt determinatae So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be Hereticks as that it is dangerous to say so and therefore there are so few that teach it All the Patriarchs and the Bishop of Rome himselfe subscrib'd to Arrianism as Baronius confesses and * Dist. 19. c. 9. L. 4. Ep. 2. Gratian affirms that Pope Anastasius the Second was strucken of God for communicating A. D. 357. n. 44. with the Heretick Photinus I know it will be made light of that Gregory the Seventh saith the very exorcists of the Roman Church are Superiour to Princes But what shall we think of that decretall of Gregory the Third who wrore to Bonaface his Legate in Germany quod illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidae debitum reddere noluerunt aliis poterant Vid. Câ—iranz Sum. Concil sol 218. Edit Antwerp nubere was this a Doctrine fit for the Head of the Church an infallible Doctor it was plainly if any thing ever was doctrina Daemoniorum and is noted for such by Gratian caus 32. q. 7. can quod proposuisli Where the glosse also intimates that the same priviledge was granted to the Englishmen by Gregory quia novi erant in fide And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better for not to instance in that learned discourse in the * Canon Law de majoritate obedientiâ where the Popes Supremacy over Kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis and the Pope is the Sunne and the Cap per venerabitem qui filii sint legitimi Emperour is the Moone for
Latines acted their master-piece of wit and stratagem the greatest that hath been till the famous and superpolitick design of Trent And for the Latine Church h Lib. 4. adv Mar. Tertullian i L. 2. de Cain c. 2. S. Ambrose k Ep. 111. ad Fortunatianum S. Austin l In Psal. 138. S. Hilary m De exeq desunctor Prudentius n L. 7. c. 21. Lactantius o In c. 6. Apoc. Victorinus Martyr and p Serm. 3. de om sanctis Vid. enim S. Aug. in Enchir. c. 108. l. 12. de civit Dei c. 9. in Ps. 36. in l. 1. retract c. 14. Vid. insuper testimonia quae collegit Spala l. 5. c. 8. n. 98. de repub Eccl. Sixt. Senens l. 6. annot 345. S. Bernard are known to be of opinion that the soules of the Saints are in abditis receptaculis exterioribus atriis where they expect the resurrection of their bodies and the glorification of their soules and though they all believe them to be happy yet they enjoy not the beatifick Vision before the resurrection Now there being so full a consent of Fathers for many more may be added and the Decree of Pope John XXII besides who was so confident for his Decree that he commanded the University of Paris to swear that they would preach it and no other and that none should be promoted to degrees in Theology that did not swear the like as q In oper 90. dierum Occham r Serm. de Paschal Gerson s In 4. sent q. 13. a. 3. Marsilius and t In 4. de Sacram. confirmat Adrianus report Since it is esteemed lawfull to dissent from all these I hope no man will be so unjust to presse other men to consent to an Authority which he himselfe judges to be incompetent These two great instances are enough but if more were necessary I could instance in the opinion of the Chiliasts maintained by the second and third Centuries and disavowed ever since in the Doctrine of communicating Infants taught and practised as necessary by the fourth and fifth Centuries detested by the Latine Church in all the following Ages in the variety of opinions concerning the very form of baptism some keeping close to the institution and the words of its first sanction others affirming it to be sufficient if it be administred in nomine De consecrat dist 4. c. à quodum Iudaeo Christi particularly S. Ambrose Pope Nicholas the First * In c. 10. Act. V. Bede and †Ep. 340. S. Bernard besides some Writers of after Ages as Hugo de S. Victore and the Doctors generally his contemporaries And it would not be inconsiderable to observe that if any Synod Generall Nationall or Provinciall be receded from by the Church of the later Age as there have been very many then so many Fathers as were then assembled and united in opinion are esteemed no Authority to determine our perswasions Now suppose 200 Fathers assembled in such a Councell if all they had writ Books and Authorities 200 Authorities had beene alleadged in confirmation of an opinion it would have made a mighty noise and loaded any man with an insupportable prejudice that should dissent And yet every opinion maintained against the Authority of any one Councell though but Provinciall is in its proportion such a violent recession and neglect of the Authority and doctrine of so many Fathers as were then assembled who did as much declare their opinion in those Assemblies by their Suffrages as if they had writ it in so many books and their opinion is more considerable in the Assembly then in their writings because it was more deliberate assisted united and more dogmaticall In pursuance of this observation it is to be noted by way of instance that S. Austin and two hundred and seventeene Bishops and all their Successors * Vid. Epist. Bonifacii 11. apud Nicolinum Tom. 2. Concil pag. 544. exemplar precum Eulalii apud eundem ibid. p. 525. Qui anathematizat omnes decisores suos qui in in ea◠causa Romae se opponendo rectae fidei regulam praevaricati sunt inter quos tomen fuit Augustinus quem pro maledicto Caelestinus tacite agnoscit admittendo sc. exemplar precum Vid. Doctor Marta de jurisdict part 4. p. 273. Erasm annot in Hieron praefatin Daniel for a whole Age together did consent in denying appeals to Rome and yet the Authority of so many Fathers all true Catholicks is of no force now at Rome in this Question but if it be in a matter they like one of these Fathers alone is sufficient The Doctrine of S. Austin alone brought in the festivall and veneration of the assumption of the blessed Virgin and the hard sentence passed at Rome upon unbaptized Infants and the Dominican opinion concerning predetermination derived from him alone as from their Originall so that if a Father speaks for them it is wonderfull to see what Tragedies are stirred up against them that dissent as is to be seen in that excellent nothing of Campian's ten reasons But if the Fathers be against them then Patres in quibusdam non leviter lapsi sunt sayes Berllarmine and constat quosdam ex praecipuis it is certain the chiefest of them have fouly erred Nay Posa Salmeron De verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. §. dices and Wadding in the Question of the immaculate conception make no scruple to dissent from Antiquity to preferre new Doctors before the Old and to justifie themselves bring instances in which the Church of Rome had determin'd against the Fathers And it is not excuse enough to say that singly the Fathers may erre but if they concurre they are certain Testimony For there is no question this day disputed by persons that are willing to be tryed by the Fathers so generally attested on either side as some points are which both sides dislike severally or conjunctly And therefore t is not honest for either side to presse the Authority of the Fathers as a concluding Argument in matter of dispute unlesse themselves will bee content to submit in all things to the Testimony of an equall number of them which I am certain neither side will doe 3. If I should reckon all the particular reasons against the certainty of this topick it would be more then needs as to this Numb 3. Question and therefore I will abstaine from all disparagement of those worthy Personages who were excellent lights to their severall Dioceses and Cures And therefore I will not instance that Clemens Alexandrinus taught that Christ felt no hunger or thirst but eat only to make demonstration of the verity of his Strom. l. 3. 6. humane nature Nor that S. Hilary taught that Christ in his sufferings had no sorrow nor that Origen taught the paines of Hell not to have an eternall duration Nor that S. Cyprian taught rebaptization nor that Athenagoras
having had most of the Copies in their own hands together with an unsatisfiable desire of prevailing in their right or in their wrong they have made an absolute destruction of this Topick and when the Fathers speak * Videat Lector Andream Cristovium in Bello Iesuitico Ioh. Reinolds in hbr. de idol Rom. Latine or breathe in a Roman Diocese although the providence of God does infinitely over-rule them and that it is next to a miracle that in the Monuments of Antiquity there is no more found that can pretend for their advantage then there is which indeed is infinitely inconsiderable Yet our Questions and uncertainties are infinitely multiplȳed in stead of a probable and reasonable determination For since the Latines alwayes complain'd of the Greeks for privately corrupting the Ancient Records both of Councels and †Vid. Ep. Nicolai ad Michael Imperat. Fathers and now the Latines make open profession not of corrupting but of correcting their writings that 's the word and at the most it was but a humane authority and that of persons not alwayes learned and very often deceiv'd the whole matter is so unreasonable that it is not worth a further disquisition But if any one desires to enquire further he may be satisfied in Erasmus in Henry and Robert Stephens in their Prefaces before the Editions of Fathers and their Observations upon them in Bellarmine de script Eccles. in Dr. Reynolds de libris Apocryphis in Scaliger and Robert Coke of Leedes in Yorkeshire in his Book De censura Patrum SECT IX Of the incompetency of the Church in its diffusive capacity to be judge of Controversies and the impertinency of that pretence of the Spirit ANd now after all these considerations of the severall Topicks Numb 1. Tradition Councels Popes and ancient Doctors of the Church I suppose it will not be necessary to consider the authority of the Church apart For the Church either speaks by Tradition or by a representative body in a Councel by Popes or by the Fathers for the Church is not a Chimaera not a shadow but a company of men beleeving in Jesus Christ which men either speak by themselves immediately or by their Rulers or by their proxies and representatives now I have considered it in all senses but in its diffusive capacity in which capacity she cannot be supposed to be a Judge of Controversies both because in that capacity she cannot teach us as also because if by a Judge we mean all the Church diffused in all its parts and members so there can be no controversie for if all men be of that opinion then there is no question contested if they be not all of a mind how can the whole diffusive Catholike Church be pretended in defiance of any one article where the diffusive Church being divided part goes this way and part another But if it be said the greatest part must carry it Besides that it is impossible for us to know which way the greatest part goes in many questions it is not alwaies true that the greater part is the best sometimes the contrary is most certain and it is often very probable but it is alwayes possible And when paucity of followers was objected to Liberius he gave this in answer There was a time when but three Children of the Captivity Theod. l. 2. c. 16. hist. resisted the Kings Decree And Athanasius wrote on purpose against those that did judge of truth by multitudes and indeed Tom. 2. it concerned him so to doe when he alone stood in the gap against the numerous armies of the Arrians But if there could in this case be any distinct consideration of Numb 2. the Church yet to know which is the true Church is so hard to be found out that the greatest questions of Christendome are judged before you can get to your Judge and then there is no need of him For those questions which are concerning the Judge of questions must be determined before you can submit to his judgement and if you can your selves determine those great questions which consist much in universalities then also you may determine the particulars as being of less difficulty And he that considers how many notes there are given to know the true Church no less then 15. by Bellarmine and concerning every one of them almost whether it be a certaine note or no there are very many questions and uncertainties and when it is resolved which are the notes there is more dispute about the application of these notes then of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will quickly be satisfied that he had better sit still then to goe round about a difficult and troublesome passage and at last get no further but returne to the place from whence he first set out And there is one note amongst the rest Holiness of Doctrine that is so as to have nothing false either in Doctrina fidei or morum for so Bellarmine explicates it which supposes all your Controversies judged before they can be tryed by the authority of the Church and when we have found out all true Doctrine for that is necessary to judge of the Church by that as Saint Austin's councell is Ecclesiam in verbis Christi investigemus then we are bound to follow because we judge it true not because the Church hath said it and this is to judge of the Church by her Doctrine not of the Doctrine by the Church And indeed it is the best and only way But then how to judge of that Doctrine will be afterwards inquired into In the meane time the Church that is the Governours of the Churches are to judge for themselves for all those who cannot judge for themselves For others they must know that their Governours judge for them too so as to keepe them in peace and obedience though not for the determination of their private perswasions For the Oeconomy of the Church requires that her authority be received by all her children Now this authority is divine in its originall for it derives immediately from Christ but it is humane in its ministration We are to be lead like men not like beasts A rule is prescribed for the guides themselves to follow as we are to follow the guides and although in matters indeterminable or ambiguous the presumption lyes on behalfe of the Governours for we do nothing for authority if we suffer it not to weigh that part down of an indifferency and a question which she chooses yet if there be error manifestus as it often happens or if the Church-Governours themselves be rent into innumerable sects as it is this day in Christendome then we are to be as wise as we can in choosing our guides and then to follow so long as that reason remains for which we first chose them And even in that Government which was an immediate sanction of God I mean the Ecclesiasticall government of the Synagogue where God had consign'd the High-Priests authority
to be discerned because those accidentall and adherent crimes which makes the man a heretique Numb 3. in questions not simply fundamentall or of necessary practice are actions so internall and spirituall that cognizance can but seldome be taken of them And therefore to instance though the opinion of Purgatory be false yet to beleeve it cannot be heresie if a man be abused into the beliefe of it invincibly because it is not a Doctrine either fundamentally false or practically impious it neither proceeds from the will nor hath any immediate or direct influence upon choice and manners And as for those other ends of upholding that opinion which possibly its Patrons may have as for the reputation of their Churches infallibility for the advantage of Derges Requiems Masses Monthly minds Anniversaries and other offices for the dead which usually are very profitable rich and easie these things may possibly have sole influences upon their understanding but whether they have or no God only knowes If the proposition and article were true these ends might justly be subordinate and consistent with a true proposition And there are some truths that are also profitable as the necessity of maintenance to the Clergy the Doctrine of restitution giving Almes lending freely remitting debts in cases of great necessity and it would be but an ill argument that the preachers of these doctrines speake false because possibly in these articles they may serve their owne ends For although Demetrius and the Crafts-men were without excuse for resisting the Preaching of S. Paul because it was notorious they resisted the truth upon ground of profit and personall emoluments and the matter was confessed by themselves yet if the Clergie should maintaine their just rites and Revenues which by pious dedications and donatives were long since ascertained upon them is it to be presumed in order of Law and charity that this end is in the men subordinate to truth because it is so in the thing it selfe and that therefore no judgement in prejudice of these truths can be made from that observation But if aliunde we are ascertain'd of the truth or falshood of Numb 4. a proposition respectively yet the judgement of the personall ends of the men cannot ordinarily be certaine and judiciall because most commonly the acts are private and the purposes internall and temporall ends may sometimes consist with truth and whether the purposes of the men make these ends principall or subordinate no man can judge and be they how they will yet they doe not alwayes prove that when they are conjunct with error that the error was caused by these purposes and criminall intentions But in questions practicall the doctrine it selfe and the person Numb 5. too may with more ease be reproved because matter of fact being evident and nothing being so certaine as the experiments of humane affaires and these being the immediate consequents of such doctrines are with some more certainty of observation redargued then the speculative whose judgement is of it self more difficult more remote from matter and humane observation and with lesse curiosity and explicitenesse declared in Scripture as being of lesse consequence and concernment in order to Gods and Man's great end In other things which end in notion and ineffective contemplation where neither the doctrine is malicious nor the person apparently criminall he is to be left to the judgement of God and as there is no certainty of humane judicature in this case so it is to no purpose it should be judged For if the person may be innocent with his Error and there is no rule whereby he can certainly be pronounced that he is actually criminall as it happens in matters speculative Since the end of the Commandment is love out of a pure conscience and faith unfained and the Commandment may obtaine its end in a consistence with this simple speculative Errour Why should men trouble themselves with such opinions so as to disturbe the publicke charity or the private confidence Opinions and persons are just so to be judged as other matters and persons criminall For no man can judge any thing else it must be a crime and it must be open so as to take cognizance and make true humane judgement of it And this is all I am to say concerning the causes of heresies and of the distinguishing rules for guiding of our judgments towards others As for guiding our judgements and the use of our reason Numb 6. in judging for our selves all that is to be said is reducible to this one proposition Since errors are then made sinnes when they are contrary to charity or inconsistent with a good life and the honour of God that judgement is the truest or at least that opinion most innocent that 1. best promotes the reputation of Gods Glory and 2. is the best instrument of holy life For in questions and interpretations of dispute these two analogies are the best to make propositions conjectures and determinations Diligence and care in obtaining the best guides and the most convenient assistances prayer and modesty of spirit simplicity of purposes and intentions humility and aptnesse to learn a peaceable disposition are therefore necessary to finding out truths because they are parts of good life without which our truths will doe us little advantage and our errours can have no excuse but with these dispositions as he is sure to find out all that is necessary so what truth he inculpably misses of he is sure is therefore not necessary because he could not finde it when he did his best and his most innocent endeavours And this I say to secure the persons because no rule can antecedently secure the proposition in matters disputable For even in the proportions and explications of this rule there is infinite variety of disputes And when the dispute is concerning free will one partie denyes it because he beleeves it magnifies the grace of God that it workes irresistably the other affirmes because he beleeves it engages us upon greater care and piety of our endeavours The one opinion thinks God reapes the glory of our good actions the other thinks it charges our bad actions upon him So in the question of merit one part chooses his assertion because he thinks it incourages us to doe good works the other beleeves it makes us proud and therefore he rejects it The first beleeves it increases piety the second beleeves it increases spirituall presumption and vanity The first thinks it magnifies God's justice the other thinks it derogates from his mercy Now then since neither this nor any ground can secure a man from possibility of mistaking we were infinitely miserable if it would not secure us from punishment so long as we willingly consent not to a crime and doe our best endeavour to avoid an errour Onely by the way let me observe that since there are such great differences of apprehension concerning the consequents of an article no man is to be
the Inquisition and restraining Prophesying who yet when they had shaked off the Spanish yoke began to persecute their Brethren It was unjust in them in all men unreasonable and uncharitable and often increases the error but never lessens the danger But yet although the Church I mean in her distinct Clericall capacity was against destroying or punishing difference in opinion Numb 12. till the Popes of Rome did super-seminate and perswade the contrary yet the Bishops did perswade the Emperours to make Lawes against Heretiques and to punish disobedient persons with fines with imprisonment with death and banishment respectively This indeed calls us to a new account For the Church-men might not proceed to bloud nor corporall inflictions but might they not deliver over to the Secular arme and perswade Temporall Princes to doe it For this I am to say that since it is notorious that the doctrine of the Clergie was against punishing Heretiques the Lawes which were made by the Emperours against them might be for restraint of differing Religion in order to the preservation of the publique peace which is too frequently violated by the division of opinions But I am not certaine whether that was alwayes the reason or whether or no some Bishops of the Court did not also serve their owne ends in giving their Princes such untoward counsell but we find the Lawes made severally to severall purposes in divers cases and with different severity Constantine the Emperour made a Sanction Ut parem cum fidelibus Apud Euseb. de vita Constant ii qui errant pacis quietis fruitionem gaudentes accipiant The Emperour Gratian decreed Ut quam quisque vellet religionem sequeretur conventus Ecclesiasticos semoto metu omnes agerent But he excepted the Manichees the Photinians and Eunomians Theodosius the elder made a law of death against the Anabaptists of his time and banish'd Eunomius and against other erring persons vide Socrat. l 7. c. 12. appointed a pecuniary mulct but he did no executions so severe as his sanctions to shew they were made in terrorem onely Vid. Cod. de heretic L. manichees leg Arriani l. Quicunque So were the Lawes of Valentinian and Martian decreeing contra omnes qui prava docere tenent that they should be put to death so did * Apud Paulum Diac. l. 16. l. 24. Michael the Emperour but Iustinian onely decreed banishment But what ever whispers some Politiques might make to their Princes as the wisest holiest did not think it lawful for Church-men alone to doe executions so neither did they transmit such Numb 11. persons to the Secular Judicature And therefore when the Edict of Macedonius the President was so ambiguous that it seemed to threaten death to Heretiques unlesse they recanted S. Austin admonished him carefully to provide that no Heretique should be put to death alledging it also not onely to be unchristian but illegall also and not warranted by imperiall constitutions for before his time no Lawes were made for their being put to death but however he prevailed that Macedonius published another Edict more explicite and lesse seemingly severe But in his Epistle to Donatus the African Proconsul he is more confident and determinate Necessitate nobis impactâ indictâ ut potiùs occidi ab eis eligamus quam eos occidendos vestris judiciis ingeramus But afterwards many got a trick of giving them over to the Secular power which at the best is no better then hypocrisie removing Numb 12. envie from themselves and laying it upon others a refusing to doe that in externall act which they doe in councell and approbation which is a transmitting the act to another and retaining a proportion of guilt unto themselves even their own and the others too I end this with the saying of Chrysostome Dogmuta Serw. de Anathemate impia quae ab haereticis profecta sunt arguere anathematizare oportet hominibus autem parcendum pro salute eorum candum SECT XV. How farre the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions BUt although Hereticall persons are not to be destroyed yet heresy being a work of the flesh and all hereticks criminall persons whose acts and doctrine have influence upon Communities of men whether Ecclesiasticall or civill the governours of the Republique or Church respectively are to do their duties in restraining those mischiefes which may happen to their severall charges for whose indemnity they are answerable And therefore according to the effect or malice of the doctrine or the person so the cognisance of them belongs to severall judicatures If it be false doctrine in any capacity and doth mischiefe in any sense or teaches ill life in any instance or incourages evill in any particular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these men must be silenced they must be convinced by sound doctrine and put to silence by spirituall evidence and restrained by authority Ecclesiasticall that is by spirituall censures according as it seemes necessary to him who is most concern'd in the regiment of the Church For all this we have precept and precedent Apostolicall and much reason For by thus doing the governour of the Church uses all that authority that is competent and all the meanes that is reasonable and that proceeding which is regular that he may discharge his cure and secure his flock And that he possibly may be deceived in judging a doctrine to be hereticall and by consequence the person excommunicate suffers injury is no argument against the reasonablenesse of the proceeding For all the injury that is is visible and in appearance and so is his crime Iudges must judge according to their best reason guided by law of God as their rule and by evidence and appearance as their best instrument and they can judge no better If the Judges be good and prudent the error of proceeding will not be great nor ordinary and there can be no better establishment of humane judicature then is a fallible proceeding upon an infallible ground And if the judgement of heresie be made by estimate and proportion of the opinion to a good or a bad life respectively supposing an error in the deduction there will be no malice in the conclusion and that he endeavours to secure piety according to the best of his understanding and yet did mistake in his proceeding is onely an argument that he did his duty after the manner of men possibly with the piety of a Saint though not with the understanding of an Angel And the little inconvenience that happens to the person injuriously judged is abundantly made up in the excellency of the Discipline the goodnesse of the example the care of the publike and all those great influences into the manners of men which derive from such an act so publiquely consign'd But such publique judgement in matters of opinion must be seldome and curious and never but to secure piety and a holy
of its managing or its effect be a sinne in it selfe or becomes a sinne to the person then as he is to doe towards other sinnes so to that opinion or man so opining But to beleeve so or not so when there is no more but meere beleeving is not in his power to enjoyne therefore not to punish And it is not onely lawfull to tollerate disagreeing perswasions but the authority of God onely is competent to take notice of it and infallible to determine it and fit to judge and therefore no humane authority is sufficient to doe all those things which can justifie the inflicting temporall punishments upon such as doe not conforme in their perswasions to a rule or authority which is not only fallible but supposed by the disagreeing person to be actually deceived But I consider that in the toleration of a different opinion Numb 4. Religion is not properly and immediately concerned so as in any degree to be endangered For it may be safe in diversity of perswasions and it also a part of Christian * Humani iuris naturalis peteslatis unicuique quod putaverit colere Sed nec religionis est cogere religionem quae suscipi sponte debet non vi Tertul. ad Scapulam Religion that the liberty of mens Consciences should be preserved in all things where God hath not set a limit and made a restraint that the soule of man should be free and acknowledge no master but Jesus Christ that matters spirituall should not be restrain'd by purishments corporall that the same meekenesse and charity should be preserved in the promotion of Christianity that gave it foundation and increment firmness in its first publication that conclusions should not be more dogmaticall then the vertuall resolution and efficacy of the premises And that the persons should not more certainly be condemned then their opinions confuted and lastly that the infirmities of men and difficulties of things should be both put in ballance to make abatement in the definitive sentence against mens persons But then because tolleration of opinions is not properly a question of Religion it may be a question of policy And although a man may be a good Christian though he beleeve an errour not fundamentall and not directly or evidently impious yet his opinion may accidentally disturbe the publick peace through the over-activenesse of the person and the confidence of their beliefe and the opinion of its appendant necessity and therefore tolleration of differing perswasions in these cases is to be considered upon politicall grounds and is just so to be admitted or denyed as the opinions or tolleration of them may consist with the publicke and necessary ends of Government Onely this As Christian Princes must looke to the interest of their Government so especially must they consider the interests of Christianity not call every redargution or modest discovery of an established errour by the name of disturbance of the peace For it is very likely that the peevishness and impatience of contradiction in the Governours may break the peace Let them remem-but the gentlenesse of Christianity the Liberty of Consciences which ought to be preserved and let them doe justice to the persons whoever they are that are peevish provided no mans person be over-born with prejudice For if it be necessary for all men to subscribe to the present established Religion by the same reason at another time a man may be bound to subscribe to the contradictory and so to all Religions in the world And they only who by their too much confidence intitle God to all their fancies and make them to be questions of Religion and evidences for Heaven or consignations to Hell they onely think this doctrine unreasonable and they are the men that first disturb the Churches peace and then thinke there is no appeasing the tumult but by getting the victory But they that consider things wisely understand that since salvation and damnation depend not upon impertinencies and yet that publick peace and tranquillity may the Prince is in this case to seeke how to secure Government and the issues and intentions of that while there is in these cases directly no insecurity to Religion unlesse by the accidentall uncharitablenesse of them that dispute Which uncharitablenesse is also much prevented when the publike peace is secured and no person is on either side ingaged upon * Dextera praecipuè capit indulgentia mentes Aâ—peritas oditi saevaque bella parit revenge or troubled with disgrace or vexed with punishments by any decretory sentence against him It was the saying of a wise states-man I meane Thuanus Haeretici qui pace data factionibus scinduntur persecutione uniuntur contra Remp. If you persecute heretickes or discrepants they unite themselves as to a common defence If you permit them they divide themselves upon private interest and the rather if this interest was an ingredient of the opinion The Summe is this it concernes the duty of a Prince because it concernes the Honour of God that all vices and every part of Numb 5. ill life be discountenanced and restrain'd And therefore in relation to that opinions are to be dealt with For the understanding being to direct the will and opinions to guide our practices they are considerable onely as they teach impiety and vice as they either dishonour God or disobey him Now all such doctrines are to be condemned but for the persons preaching such Doctrines if they neither justifie nor approve the pretended Consequences which are certainly impious they are to be separated from that consideration But if they know such consequences and allow them or if they doe not stay till the doctrines produce impiety but take sinne before hand and mannage them impiously in any sense or if either themselves or their doctrine doe really and without colour or fained pretext disturb the publique peace * Extat prudens monitum Mecaenatis apud Dionem Cassium ad Augustum in haec verba Eos vero qui in Divinis aliquid innovant adio habe coerce non Deorum solùm causâ sed quia nova numina hi tales introducentes mulios impellunt ad mutationem rerum Unde conjurationes seditiones Conciliabula existunt res profectò minime conducibiles principatui Et legib us quoque expressum est quod in religionem committitur in omnium fertur injuriam and just interests they are not to be suffered In all other cases it is not onely lawfull to permit them but it is also necessary that Princes and all in authority should not persecute discrepant opinions And in such cases wherein persons not otherwise incompetent are bound to reprove an error as they are in many in all these if the Prince makes restraint he hinders men from doing their duty and from obeying the Lawes of JESUS CHRIST SECT XVII Of complyance with disagreeing persons or weake constiences in generall VPon these grounds it remaines that we reduce this doctrine
restrained from preaching such Doctrine if they mean to preserve their Government and the necessity of the thing will justifie the lawfulnesse of the thing If they think it to themselves that cannot be helped so long it is innocent as much as concernes the Publick but if they preach it they may be accounted Authors of all the consequent inconveniences and punisht accordingly No Doctrine that destroyes Government is to be endured For although those Doctrines are not alwayes good that serve the private ends of Princes or the secret designes of State which by reason of some accidents or imperfections of men may be promoted by that which is false and pretending yet no Doctrine can be good that does not comply with the formality of Government it selfe and the well being of bodies Politick Augur cum esset Cato dicere ausus est optimis auspiciis ea geri Cicero de senectute quae pro Reipub. salute gererentur quae contra Rempub. fierent contra auspicia fieri Religion is to meliorate the condition of a people not to doe it disadvantange and therefore those Doctrines that inconvenience the Publick are no parts of good Religion ut Respub salva fit is a necessary consideration in the permission of Prophecyings for according to the true solid and prudent ends of the Republick so is the Doctrine to be permitted or restrained and the men that preach it according as they are good Subjects and right Common-wealths men For Religion is a thing superinduced to temporall Government and the Church is an addition of a capacity to a Common-wealth and therefore is in no sense to disserve the necessity and just interests of that to which it is super-added for its advantage and conservation And thus by a proportion to the Rules of these instances all Numb 2. their other Doctrines are to have their judgement as concerning Toleration or restraint for all are either speculative or practicall they are consistent with the Publick ends or inconsistent they teach impiety or they are innocent and they are to be permitted or rejected accordingly For in the Question of Toleration the foundation of Faith good life and Government is to be secured in all others cases the former considerations are effectuall SECT XX. How farre the Religion of the Church of Rome is Tolerable But now concerning the Religion of the Church of Rome which was the other instance I promised to consider we Numb 1. will proceed another way and not consider the truth or falsity of the Doctrines for that is not the best way to determine this Question concerning permitting their Religion or Assemblies because that a thing is not true is not Argument sufficient to conclude that he that believes it true is not to bee endured but we are to consider what inducements there are that possesse the understanding of those men whether they be reasonable and innocent sufficient to abuse or perswade wise and good men or whether the Doctrines be commenc'd upon designe and manag'd with impiety and then have effects not to be endured And here first I consider that those Doctrines that have Numb 2. had long continuance and possession in the Church cannot easily be supposed in the present Professors to be a design since they have received it from so many Ages and it is not likely that all Ages should have the same purposes or that the same Doctrine should serve the severall ends of divers Ages But however long prescription is a prejudice oftentimes so insupportable that it cannot with many Arguments be retrench'd as relying upon these grounds that truth is more ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leave her in an errour that whatsoever is new is not only suspicious but false which are suppositions pious and plausible enough And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints or baptized Infants the communicationg would have been believed with as much confidence as the other Articles are and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected But this consideration is to be enlarg'd upon all those particulars which as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings so they are instruments of their excuse and by making their errours to be invincible and their opinions though false yet not criminall make it also to be an effect of reason and charity to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience and let them answer to God for themselves and their own opinions Such as are the beauty and splendor of their Church their pompous Service the statelinesse and solennity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the Antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continuall Succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed S. Peter the supposall and pretence of his personall Prerogatives the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperiall Seat with their Episcopall hath brought to that Sea the flattering expressions of minor Bishops which by being old Records have obtain'd credibility the multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonialls which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes an apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters doctrinall the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personall opinions of the Fathers which they with infinite clamours see to bee cryed up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time The great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affim to be de fide the great differences which are commenc'd amongst their Adversaries abusing the Liberty of Prophecying unto a very great licentiousnesse their happinesse of being instruments in converting divers Nations the advantages of Monarchicall Government the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences which though they feele they consider not they daily doe enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the riches of their Church the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity the known holinesse of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious Persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantiall or imaginary the casualties and accidents that have hapned to their Adversaries which being chances of humanity are attributed to severall causes according as the fancies of men and their Interests are pleased or satisfied the temporall selicity of their Professors the oblique arts indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongst many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pretinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them These things and divers others may very easily perswade
eldest Writers of the Latine Church that in their times it was ab antiquo the custome of the Church to pray for the Soules of the Faithfull departed in the dreadfull mysteries And it was an Institution Apostolicall sayes one of them and so transmitted to the following Ages of the Church and when once it began upon slight and discontent to be contested against by Aërius the man was presently condemn'd for a Heretick as appeares in Epiphanius But I am not to consider the Arguments for the Doctrine Numb 13. it selfe although the probability and faire pretence of them may help to excuse such persons who upon these or the like grounds doe heartily believe it But I am to consider that whether it be true or false there is no manner of malice in it and at the worst it is but a wrong errour upon the right side of charity and concluded against by its Adversaries upon the confidence of such Arguments which possibly are not so probable as the grounds pretended for it And if the same judgement might be made of any more of Numb 14. their Doctrines I think it were better men were not furious in the condemning such Questions which either they understood not upon the grounds of their proper Arguments or at least consider not as subjected in the persons and lessened by circumstances by the innocency of the event or other prudentiall considerations But the other Article is harder to be judged of and hath made greater stirres in Christendome and hath been dasht at Numb 15. with more impetuous objections and such as doe more trouble the Question of Toleration For if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be false as upon much evidence we believe it is then t is accused of introducing Idolatry giving Divine worship to a Creature adoring of bread and wine and then comes in the precept of God to the Jewes that those Prophets who perswaded to Idolatry should be slaine But here we must deliberate for it is concerning the lives Deut. 13. of men and yet a little deliberation may suffice For Idolatry Numb 16. is a forsaking the true God and giving Divine Worship to a Creature or to an Idoll that is to an imaginary god who hath no foundation in essence or existence And is that kind of superstition which by Divines is called the superstition of an undue object Now it is evident that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternall God hypostatically joyned with his Holy humanity which humanity they believe actually present under the veile of the Sacramentall signes And if they thought him not present they are so farre from worshipping the bread in this case that themselves professe it to be Idolatry to doe so which is a demonstration that their soule hath nothing in it that is Idololatricall If their confidence and fancyfull opinion hath engag'd them upon so great mistake as without doubt it hath yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry Et nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas And although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man and undone and cancelled the principles of two or three Sciences to bring in this Article yet they have a Divine Revelation whose literall and Grammaticall sense if that sense were intended would warrant them to doe violence to all the Sciences in the Circle and indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against naturall reason is an Argument to make them disbelieve who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schoole and which now adayes passe for the Doctrine of the Church with as much violence to the principles of naturall and supernaturall Philosophy as can be imagin'd to be in the point of Transubstantiation 1. But for the Article it selfe we all say that Christ is there Numb 17. present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amisse to worship him at that time when he gives himselfe to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a Consociation of divers actions of Religion and Divine Worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine Worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the Understanding and does not communicate with the will for all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Sonne of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine Adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to passe an Act of Adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turn'd into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine it selfe 2. And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering Numb 18. such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty and what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remaines will never bee brought to it there is no feare of that And he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefes does no hurt but altering the opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence only it hath its being criminall 3. However if it were Idolatry I think the Precept of God Numb 19. to the Jewes of killing false and Idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have cald for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetnesse and consign'd this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekenesse which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a Iudiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to
voluntatum non opinionum True Faith which leads to charity Aquin. 22 ae q 37 a 1. leads on to that which unites wills and affections not opinions Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno Numb 3. publish'd his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion and although he liv'd after the Councell of Chalcedon yet he made not the Decrees of that Councell an instrument of its restraint and limit as preferring the peace of Christendome and the union of charity farre before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion which never was or ever will be reall and substantiall and although it were very convenient if it could be had yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible and if men please whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supply'd by a charitable complyance and mutuall permission of opinion and the offices of a brotherly affection prescrib'd us by the Lawes of Christianity And we have seen it that all Sects of Christians when they have an end to be serv'd upon a third have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for and which they formerly deny'd but now grant that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third The Arrians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks The Catholicks and Novatians joyn'd against the Arrians Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous For that they doe permit each others disagreeings for their interest 's sake convinces them of the lawfulnesse of the thing or else the unlawnesse of their own proceedings and therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction for then that good end would hallow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious while it serves the design of religious purposes SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how farre they may doe it AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions it is Numb 1. to be regulated according to the Lawes of those Churches for if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion then they communicate with them as they are Servants of Christ as Disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his Laws and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the Servants of their Common Lord For since no Church of one name is infallible a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular that she erres in some Article or other either he cannot communicate with any or else he may communicate with all that doe not make a sinne or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion And therefore as every particular Church is bound to Tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated so every particular person is bound to Tolerate her that is not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second so she will give me the right hand of Fellowship though I affirm it therefore because I professe the Religion of Jesus Christ and retain all matters of Faith and necessity But this thing will scarce be reduced to practise for few Churches that have fram'd bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same confession which is a plaine demonstration that such bodies of Confession and Articles doe much hurt by becomming instruments of separating and dividing Communions and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certaine meanes of Schism and disunion But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings doe not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the Schismatick he that makes unnecessary and supposing the state of things inconvenient impositions or he that disobeyes them because hee cannot without doing violence to his conscience believe them Hee that parts Communion because without sinne hee could not entertain it or they that have made it necessary for him to separate by requiring such conditions which to man are simply necessary and to his particular are either sinfull or impossible The Summe of all is this There is no security in any thing Numb 2. or to any person but in the pious and hearty endeavours of a good life and neither sinne nor error does impede it from producing its proportionate and intended effect because it is a direct deletery to sin and an excuse to errors by making them innocent and therefore harmlesse And indeed this is the intendment and design of Faith For that we may joyn both ends of this Discourse together therefore certain Articles are prescribed to us and propounded to our understanding that so we might be supplyed with instructions with motives and engagements to incline and determine our wills to the obedience of Christ. So that obedience is just so consequent to Faith as the acts of will are to the dictates of the understanding Faith therefore being in order to obedience and so farre excellent as it selfe is a part of obedience or the promoter of it or an engagement to it it is evident that if obedience and a good life be secured upon the most reasonable and proper grounds of Christianity that is upon the Apostles Creed then Faith also is secur'd Since whatsoever is beside the duties the order of a good life cannot be a part of Faith because upon Faith a good life is built all other Articles by not being necessary are no otherwise to be requir'd but as they are to be obtain'd and fourd out that is morally and fallibly and humanely It is fit all truths be promoted fairely and properly and yet but few Articles prescribed Magisterially nor framed into Symbols and bodies of Confession least of all after such composures should men proceed so furiously as to say all disagreeing after such declarations to be damnable for the future and capitall for the present But this very thing is reason enough to make men more limited in their prescriptions because it is more charitable in such suppositions so to doe But in the thing it selfe because few kinds of errours are damnable it is reasonable as few should be capitall And because Numb 3. every thing that is damnable in it selfe and before Gods Judgement Seat is not discernable before men and questions disputable are of this condition it is also very reasonable that fewer be capitall then what are damnable and that such Questions should bee permitted to men to believe because they must be left to
ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras himselfe was reduc'd into lay communion being depos'd by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say Apud Athanas Apolog. 2. epist Presb. Diacon Mareotic ad Curiosum Philagrium the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordain'd with Ischiras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so knowne a businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The paralell case is of the Presbyters ordain'd by Maximus who was another Bishop in the aire too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Councell in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read Cap. 4. the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Councell of Sevill These cases are so known I need not insist on them Cap. 5. This onely In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduc'd to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacraments conferr'd by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to Minister but in the cases of the present instance the ordinations were pronounc'd as null to have bestowed nothing and to be meerely imaginary * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordain'd without a title or in the diocesse of another Bishop as in the Councell of †Can. 6. Chalcedon and of * Can 13. Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter it was by positive constitution pronounced void and no more and therefore may be rescinded by the Counter-mand of an equall power A Councell at most may doe it and therefore without a Councell a probable necessity will let us loose But to this the answer is evident 1. The expressions in the severall cases are severall of diverse issue for in case of those nullities which are meerely Canonicall they are expressed as then first made but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop they are onely declared voy'd ipso facto And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations the Canon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IRRITAM EXISTIMARI manûs impositionem to be esteem'd as null that is not to have Canonicall approbation but is not declared null in Naturâ rei as it is in the foregoing instances 2. In the cases of Antioch and Chalcedon the decree is pro futuro which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodall declarations pronoun'd such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a cleare evidence that this nullity viz in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declar'd to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by the Nature and institution of the Order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependant upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was onely in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speake lesse for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognisance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Ierome Quid facit Episcopus except â ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith ad Evagrium he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Solâ homil 2. in 1. Tim. 2. lâ quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantùm plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was call'd an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aërius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemn'd and branded for heresie and by the Catholike Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring then positive and Canonicall Sanction But now proceed The Councell held in Trullo complaining that Can. 37. the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forc'd some Bishops from their residence made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and doe such things as DID BELONG TO THE BISHOP and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonicall ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Councell And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by the laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands * There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Councell that hath an expression very pertinent to Can. 20. this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to doe them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentiâ suâ Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearely by this Canon some things suppos'd to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are nam'd before viz Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Councell was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be Understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop us'd by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordaine Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholike Church which S. Epiphanius oppos'd to the haeres 75. doctrine of Aërius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptisme but no Fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a
Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiasticall tribunall and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which shee might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a very secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appeal'd to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat he betrayes the individuall and inseparable right of holy Church For her censures shee may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is beg'd or borrow'd none of her owne nor of a fit edge to be us'd in her abscissions and coërcions * I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of Can. 39. so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affaires of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocesse The next Consideration concerning the Bishop's jurisdiction is of what persons he is Iudge And because our Scene lyes herein Church-practice I shall only set downe the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affaire and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soule any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheepe heare his voice and the call of his sheap-heard-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperour for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Millayne the Emperour wished them to be carefull in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. lib. 4. c. 5. Set such an one in the Archiepiscopall throne that we who rule the Kingdome may sincerely submitt our head unto him viz in matters of spirituall import * And since all power is deriv'd from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regall power but Bishops in his Sacerdotall and Propheticall * So that the King hath a Supreme Regall power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdome became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of soules and in these also all the externall compulsory and jurisdiction in his owne For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himselfe also upon the same termes becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotall authority And therefore the Kingdome and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their severall capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spirituall Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in severall capacity the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keyes are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophet â gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their severall excellencies the Highest powers under heaven *** In this sense it is easy to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacrednesse of Royall prerogatives were not both the piety and sense of the Church sufficiently cleare in the issues of her humblest obedience * And this is the sense of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and Epist. ad Philadelph disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopopareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himselfe obey the Bishop * This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis Lib. de dignit Sacerd cap. 2. nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potest is ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and incausis simplicis religionis So that good Emperour in his oration to Lib. 10. Eccles hist. c. 2. the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocesse to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperour but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the lawes of Christendome The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperour exactly the same per omniae as it is related by Ruffinus * S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperour Lib. 10. Eccles hist. cap. 19. to desire him to goe forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Millain showes that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had Theodor. lib. 5 c. 18. by repentance washed out the bloud that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderfull concurrence of piety in the Emperour and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperour was also guided by the Pastorall rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis Euseb lib. 6. cap. 25. quod Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not
enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meere Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorizing the decretall For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolicall men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto PETER and to the rest of the APOSTLES Men and BRETHREN what shall we doe Iudas and Silas who were Apostolicall men are called in Scripture chiefe men among the BRETHREN But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperour in the 8 th Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid ampliùs dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men saies the Emperour must by no means meddle with causes Ecclesiasticall nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councells Oecumenicall They must not meddle for these things appertaine to the cognisance of Bishops and their decision * And now after all this what authority is equall to this LEGISLATIVE of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle Lib. 4. polit c. 15. They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make lawes But to make lawes is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairely enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops LAstly as if all the acts of jurisdiction and every § 42. imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks the Presbyters subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispenser of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himselfe delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros MEOS communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithfull people by MY Presbyters And therefore in the third Councell of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerke of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church .... Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have Can. 45. Concil Carthag 3. but one Presbyter must that one be taken from him Idsequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved ut Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retaine another Bishop's without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himselfe Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero Eccles. hist. lib. 10. cap. 17. Suo He comes in with Timothy HIS Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius HIS Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius HIS Priests So Theodoret. Peter and Irenaeus were two Lib. 2. cap. 8. more of his Presbyters as himselfe witnesses Paulinianus comes sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerke sed Athanas. Epist a◠vitam solitar agentes ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordaine him But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summe is this The question was whether or no and how farre the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travaile without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocesse without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to preferre them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not onely not without his ordination but not without a speciall faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonicall impositions even by the decrce of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Councell of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Iudges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocesse by the concurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperour and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmaticall resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopall function that they have supreme and universall spirituall power viz. in the sense above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of their Diocesse as that they are higher then all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority incomparable unparalell'd power and many more if all this be witnesse enough of the superiority of Episcopall jurisdiction we have their depositions wee may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the primitive state for that is truly a reformation id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will loose nothing by these unfortunate contestations BUT against the cause it is objected super totam §. 43. Their Iurisdiction was over many congregations or Parishes Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochiall and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or Citty Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what
reports that Hosius Bishop of Epist. ad Solitar Corduba president in the Nicene Councell said it was the abhomination of delolation that a lay-man should be judge in Ecclesiasticis judicijs in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affayres Res Suidas in vitâ Leontij alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity * To these adde the Councell of Venice for it is very considerable in Can. 9. A. D. 453. this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium caeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquà adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam NON SAECULARIUM POTESTATUM debebit ambire Alitèr à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not heare the causes of their servants but the Bishop unlesse the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must heare the cause but NO LAY IUDGES by any meanes * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperiall edict for so Novell constit 123. Iustinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiasticall Secular Iudges should have no interest SED SANCTISSIMUS EPISCOPUS SECUNDUM SACRAS REGULAS CAUSAE FINEM IMPONAT The Bishop according to the Sacred Canons must be the sole judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretall of S. Gregory one of the fower Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae lib. 7. epist. 66. committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiasticall be not any waies concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already § 36. and § 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of * Tertull. Apol. c. 33. S. Ambros. in 1. Tim. 5. 1. lib. 1. de offic c. 20. S. August lib. 3. contra Crescon Epist. 137. Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the latine for the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I thinke S. Austin did so in his third booke against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not foure for to pretend such slight aëry imaginations against the constant knowne open Catholike practice and doctrine of the Church and history of all ages is as if a man should goe to fright an Imperiall army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of lay-Elders the Moderne Aërians and Acephali doe wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of antiquity for the white and watry colours of lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge antiquity for the men with whose Heifers they would faine plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would faine have beene it is knowne so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of lay-Iudges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can doe no service in the present Question I am only to cleare this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either divine or humane but that Lay-Iudges of causes Ecclesiasticall as they are unheard of in antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the lake of Gebenna and so to the place of the neerest denomination The objection is from S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Elders that rule well be 1. Tim. 5. 17. accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word doctrine especially they therefore all Elders doe not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Pauls sense not so much to doe one as to doe the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptisme and betook himselfe to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not S. Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to severall gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other offices and yet because the guift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the office and therefore the sense of the words is this that all Presbyters must be honour'd but especially they that Prophecy doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Adde to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek borne and yet a Godly Bishop and S. Austin his Presbyter preach'd for him The same case might occurre in the Apostles times For then was a concurse of all Nations to the Christian Synaxes especially in all great Imperiall Citties and Metropolitans as Rome Antioch Ierusalem Caesarea and the like Now all could not speak with tongues neither could all Prophecy they were particular guifts given severally to severall men appointed to minister in Church-offices Some Prophecyed some interpreted and therefore is is an ignorant fancy to think that he must needs be a Laick whosoever in the ages Apostolicall was not a Preacher 2. None of the Fathers ever expounded this place of Lay-Elders so that we have a traditive interpretation of it in prejudice to the pretence of our new office 3. The word Presbyter is never used in the new Testament for a Lay-man if a Church officer