Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
in the one in the other to be grounded upon a sentence of absolution that supposes it not And yet it will not be acknowledged that there is any decay of discipline any fault any defect in the Laws and Customes for what is Law but Custome what rule is there for mens actions that custome inforceth not of the Church that cause so much difference in the proceedings of it Howsoever the custome of redeeming Penance came into the Church and how prejudiciall soever the voyage of the H. Land or the like may have been to the discipline of it the application of temporall good to some spirituall end was a poor cloke for such a corruption in comparison of that zeal to Christianity which fighting for Christians against Infidels pretendeth This is the most material occasion that I find alledged for that change which the discipline of the Church hath suffered in granting absolution before Penance To wit the indulgences granted them that undertook to fight for Christians against infidels And this is enough to render the abuse and the decay of discipline by the means thereof visible But when Indulgences are proposed for a small summe of Money pre-supposing indeed such qualifications as need not the Indulgences if rightly understood and had but as not being rightly understood and had render the Indulgences dangerous delusions whither poor people will not rather be induced by our common corruption to imbrace that sense which makes the pardon of their sinnes void as so had then that which makes them to be deceived of their money to no effect by the Church I leave to the conscience of discreet Christians to judge And whither this be not horribly to abuse the Keyes of the Church I leave to God and man to judge In the mean time I onely remind you of that difficulty which the ancient Church made in believing and admitting that those were saved who being admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in danger of death died before they could accomplish that Penance upon undertaking whereof they were admitted to it For is not the case of him that steddily purposeth to perform that Penance which the Church imposeth according to Rule if he survive much more hopeful for salvation dying afore then his that thinks his sinne purged by the sentence of absolution without undertaking or performing any Penance at all in order to the pardon of it And here I summon the Consciences of the Doctors of the Church of Rome Suppose a man take revenge upon himselfe according to a good conscience that is proportionably to the weight of his sinne according to the Rules that were in force in more uncorrupt times of the Church another according to the doctrine that is current in the Church of Rome professing himselfe truly sorry for his sinne and receiving absolution presumes of pardon for it intending to satisfie for temporall punishment that remains as he is directed whether of these is upon the better ground whether of them pretends to pardon upon the better title supposing the premises concerning the Covenant of Grace He who satisfying his conscience upon the original word of the Gospel and the primitive practice of the Church that he hath appeased the wrath of God by taking revenge upon himselfe and is thereby returned to his first resolution for Christianity Or he who being touched with sorrow for his sinne and submitting the same to the Keys of the Church hath done what the current practice thereof requires him to do for redeeming the temporall punishment of iâ— For it is evident in the doctrine of the Apostles and the primitive practice of the Church that the satisfaction of Penance appeaseth the wrath of God upon this ground because it evidenceth that resolution for Christianity to be restored which a man otherwise ought not to presume of in himselfe when he knows in himselfe that it hath been interrupted much lesse ought the Church to presume of it in him when the interruption thereof hath been visible to the Church He then who having conceived sorrow for his â—â—nne submits himselfe to the Keyes of the Church to be restored to Gods grace by the ministery thereof and does as he is injoyned to do if the Church and the person whom the Church trusts for him do their duty that is supposing the Laws of the Church to be good and sufficient and well and sufficiently exercised hath a good and sufficient presumption that he is restored But he who proceedeth upon the common faith of the Gospel and the primitive practice of the Church whereby all that is doubtful in Christianity must be resolved attaineth that assurance of his restoring to the state of salvation which I have showed is attainable But not supposing the Laws of the Church to be either sufficient or sufficiently executed that presumption of pardon which can be built upon it is neither good nor sufficient but rather peremtory to salvation by palliating the crime which it ought to cure Now for the ground which the Church of Rome gives a reasonable man to presume hereof it is not to be denied or dissembled that the Council of Trent Sess XIV cap. VIII declareth that it is the duty of all Confessors to injoyn wholsome and competent Penance upon all Penitents and that by virtue of S. Pauls charge 1 Tim. V. 22. upon which the Power of the Church in imposing Penance is truly grounded seeing the blessing of the Church signifieth by imposition of hands is as much granted in Penance as in ordaining least they become partakers of other mens sinnes declaring withall the intent which they ought to aim at in imposing them But we know also and see thereby that there is no effectuall course taken to see that this be done whither it be possible to take a course that may be effectuall to be done or not And we know besides how great vogue that opinion hath which maketh attrition with the Keyes of the Church that is the shame of declaring a mans sinne to his Confessor a sufficient disposition to forgivenesse And therefore it is justly to be questioned whither the Law of secret confession with these abusive opinions and scandalous practises under which it is now exercised in the Church of Rome is for the best or not That is to say whether the greatest part of them who submit to it do not unduly perswade themselves that their sinnes are cured by it when indeed they are not For considering the ground of all superstition and counterfeit religion to be this that man sensible of the wrath of God due to his sinne on the other side yet favourable to that concupiscence which sinne pleaseth on the otherâ—side desireth a colour to perswade himself that he is reconciled to God by such means as indeed serves not the turn I know not whether perswasion is the more catching supposing the present division between the Reformation and the Church of Rome that a man is justified by believing that he is
and ruled the whole Church and might as easily make his corruptions generall as Christ Christianity But if it were meerly their saying to make it a Tradition of the Apostles what shall we say of Pelagius For they must pardon me who think that the hatred of his Heresie brought the baptism of Infants into force More generall it might deservedly make it For by the condemning of his Heresie the danger of Infants going out of the world was conâ—eâ—â—ed But it was the Baptism of Infants being in force afore that made his opinion an Heresie as making the necessity of Baptism visible as supposed by all Christians and therefore the truth of Original sin Pelagius was not so very a fool as they imagine If all the knowledge that a man of his time could get by seeing all parts of the Church would have served for an exception to the authority of the baptism of Infants he might have wrangled with his adverse party about the exposition of those Scriptures which are alleadged in the point till this day and his opinion have found footing in the Church But because he could not sâ—op mens eyes so as not to see what they saw we may for wantonnesse betray the cause of God by letting the interpretation of the Scriptures loose to every mans fancy which God had appointed to be confined within the Tradition of his Apostles but they could not chuse but condemn that position which the visible practice of the Church proclaimed to be Heresie Thus farre then I proceed upon the Tradition of the Apostles to make the Baptism of Infants necessary in case of necessity that is of danger of death But I that condemn not the ancients for disputing that it ought not to be generall nor the Greek Church for reserving it till years of discretion supposing the means of it reasonably secured in that case am not like to attribute the necessity of baptizing all Infants which the present Laws of the Church do introduce to the tradition of the Apostles but to the original power of the Church founded upon the constitution thereof in determining the circumstances of those offices which being incumbent upon the Church are not determined by any law of either of his Apostles For though I take not upon me to say that there can no reason be given why this particular should not now be so determined as we see it is who do acknowledge great reasons to have been alleadged by the ancients to the contrary for their time yet I see so many ways for the misunderstanding and the neglect of Christianity to creep upon the Church that I cannot see sufficient reason why the Church should trust the conscience of particular Christians whom it concerned to see to the baptism of all Infants that might come into that case now that the world was come into the Church and that therefore the Church could not have the like presumption of the conscience of all that professed Christianity in the discharge of an office of that concernment to that which it might reasonably have while it was under persecution and men could not be thought to imbrace Christianity but for conscience sake And therefore as I do maintain it alwaies to have been within the lawfull power of the Church to make a generall Law as now it is so I must averre that there was just reason and ground for the exercise of that power in determining this point whither as in the East with some toleration of those whom they had confidence in for seeing to the baptizing of their Infants in danger of death or generally as in the West to see the occasion of mischiefe and scandall prevented by doing it presently after birth And therefore those that forsake the unity of the Church â—ather then be subject to a Law which it may lawfully make as I have showed if that which hath been resolved of the difference between Heresie and Schism be true cannot avoid being schismaticks As for the ground of that opinion which moves them to break up the seal of God marked upon those that are baptized unto the hope of salvation upon the obligation of Christianity by baptizing them anew to the hope of salvation without the obligation of Christianity whether they are to be counted Hereticks therefore or not let who will dispute This I may justly inferre they take as sure a course to murther the souls of those whom they baptize again as of those whom they let go out of the world unbaptized There remains two questions which seem to make this resolution hard to believe If there be no salvation without Baptism no not for the Infants of Christians it is demanded what becomes of their souls and whither they go I must needs allow that those ancient and later Divines alledged by Cassander and our Hooker after him had reason to entertain a charitable hope of the happinesse of those who being prevented by the inevitable casualties of mans life of attaining the Sacrament of Baptism are accompanied out of the world by the prayers of Christian Parents commending them to God with the same affections wherewith they alwaies vowed them to God by bringing them to Christianity so soon as they should become capable to be instructed in it But if I will stand to the bounds of Gods revealed will I must also say that this hope is presumed without book that is without any Law of God to warrant the effect of it For if God promise the Kingdom of heaven to Infants that depart after Baptism as the reasons premised and the practice of the Church make evidence nothing hindreth the mercy of God to extend to those that depart without it where nothing hindreth the power of his grace to regenerate without the Sacrament those whom he hath not expressed that he will not regenerate But this shall not proceed from any obligation of his Covenant of Grace nor tend to make good the evidence thereof which the practice of the Church createth And therefore shall make onely a presumption of what may be and not of what is I find that Arminius had further a doubtful conceit that all Infants departing without Baptism are to be saved by the virtue of Gods second Covenant and the death of Christ upon which it is grounded God having extended both as farre as sinne by the first Adam extendeth But the publication of the second Covenant and the intent of Christs death upon which it is grounded being conditional as hath been showed I suppose it is not enough to intitle Infants to the benefit thereof that they never did any thing to refuse it Otherwise what cause is there why all the Gentiles that go out of the world without hearing of Christianity should not be saved by virtue of it notwithstanding all that they sinne against the Law of nature Because the New Covenant is to take effect where it is not refuted and sinnes against the Law of nature cannot be constrained as a refusall of the
to study the reconciling of carnality vvith Christianity Supposing the consent of a body vvhereof they thought themselves to be members it is no marvail that there would not Not supposing that it must needs appear utterly unreasonable As for the insolubility of mariage by divorce I vvill not say there hath been so absolute a consent in it by the practice of Christians as in the mariage of one to one It is argued indeed in the late Book called Vxor Ebraica pretending onely to relate the opinions and practice of Christians in mater of divorce but intending as it should seem by the Authors opinion declared elsewhere that there is no such thing as Ecclesiasticall Power or any society of the Church by Gods Law to inferre that the Church hath nothing to do vvith Matrimoniall causes vvhich it hath nothing to do with if any thing but the lavv of the Church can secure the conscience in point of divorce p. 543. 544. that so long as the Christians vvere mingled with the Jews they observed the judiciall laws of the Synagogue and therefore corrected all divorces good beâ—or God which were according to Moses Lavv. And therefore that vvhatso ever was in force among Christians before Constantine was in force meerly by the voluntary consent of Christians vvhich vvas to give vvay vvhen the secular Power should otherwise provide as in mater of divorce so in other Matrimoniall causes This is thâ—â—â—â—ich seems to be intended p. 559. But this pretence is rooted up by proving the Church to be a society and Body founded by God to communicate in the service of God for the attaining of everlasting life For thereupon it remâ—â—ns evident that the Lavvs thereof came not originally from the voluntary consent of Christians unlesse you understand that consent whereby they submit to the Christian faith that they may be saved and thereupon find themselves tieâ— to submit to them from whom they receive that faith whereby they hope to be saved but from those who first delivered Christianity to the Church that is from our Lord his Apostles And had Christians been left to their own choice it is not possible they should have imposed upon themselves that is that the whole Church should have received that charge of not divorcing which the Rules and Customes of the Church evidence to have been in force through the whole Church as by and by it will appear As for the time when the Christians observed Moses Law that excellent saying of Justine the Martyâ— takes place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They obey the Lawes and by their own lives go beyond the Laws For the Jews Law was then their Civill Law because authorized by the Romanes in as much as they restrained it not So by complying with the Jews they gained the free exercise of their Christianity as well as invited them to admit and receive it But did they therefore renounce the Law of Christ where it restrained them more then the Law of Moses Did they allow themselves more wives then one when Moses allowed it the Jews and they complyed with Moses Certainly the Law that allows a man more wives then one never constrained any man to make use of that allowance So well might the Christians acknowledging Moses Law acknowledge themselves bound not to use the power of putting away their wives when Moses Law allowed it But it is further argued there lib. III. cap. XXVIII XXIX XXX at least it seems upon the same ground to be argued that the Roman Laws from Constantine to the fall of the Eastern Empire in a maner do allow divorce upon such causes as the Soveraign thought fit Which Laws being made by Christian Princes intending to limit that infinite liberty which the former laws of the Empire allowed either party to dissolve mariage at pleasure with all that he brought must needs pretend to secure Christians in point of conscience divorcing upon no other causes then those laws allow Constantine therefore restrains the liberty of divorce to three causes on either side On the wives side if the â—usband should Murther Poyson or Rob graves On the husbands if the wife should be an Adulteress an Impoisoner or a Bawd And this at such time as he advised with Bishops in all that he did granting then an appeal to their Courts by an act dated the same year as it is probable and lately published in Sirmondus his Appendix to Theodosius his Code without date for the year but directed to the same Ablavius P. P. to whom the form is directed Cod. Theod. lib. III. Tit. XVI which Theodosius the younger a very Christian Prince extends to many more Justinian the legislative humour being then predominant limits the mater otherwise as he thought fit His successor Justine goes beyond him in allowing divorce upon consent of parties though at neither parties choice Which Law is not found to have been repealed till it was left out of that collection of Laws called the Basilicae into which Leo the wife about the year DCCCC compiled all the Laws which he meant should stand unrepealed The particulars you may see curiously collected there Which I should make no account of did it not appear also by sundry testimonies of later times there alledged that the Greek Church did proceed according to the said Laws in blessing Mariages made upon such divorces and consequently allowing the communion of the Church to those that made them Balsamon upon Syn. VI. Can. LXXXVIII defines an unreasonable cause of divorce to be that which the Judge to wit according to the Law allows not Noâ— makes he any exception to them from any Canon of the Church writing upon Photius his Nâ—mocanon Tit. XIII 4. 30. And upon Can. Carthag CV alledging Justinian Novel CXVII he saith That the Canon is not in force to wit the Law having provided otherwise referring himselfe to that which he had written upon the VI Synode quoted afore Harmenopulus also in Prochicro sayes plainly that divorces were judged amongst them by the Imperiall Laws And Matthaus Monachus Quaest Matrim Juris Grâ—co-Rom Tomo I. p. 507. So also the Canons of Alexuis Patr. CP about MXXX alledged by our Author out of a written Copy p. 613. And Michael Chrysocephalus upon Can. Apost XLVIII p. 600. Besides Matthâ—us Blastares in Nomocan alledged by Arcudius p. 517. where he being a Greek confesseth that the Greek Church had sometimes practiced according to the Civill Laws Which had they not secured the conscience it could not it ought not to have done And what case can there be in point of mariage wherein the Law of the Land secures not the conscience if in point of divorce it do Or where is the indissolubility of mariage and the Interest of the Church in mariage grounded upon it But because it would be two gross for a Christian to say that mans Law allowing divorce can secure a Christian in conscience against Gods Law forbidding it our Lord having said Whoso puts away his wife
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
whose dicision might secure the People of that good which the Law tendered if they should practice the Law of mariage according to their determinations But Christianity being tendered to all nations for their everlasting happiness one Society of the Church founded of all that should receive it of all nations and the limitations peculiar to Christianity occasioning many things to become questionable many times necessary to be determined for Christians the right of determining them can no more be thought an escheat to the civil power then the Church to the Common-wealth If then the Laws of all Christian Kingdoms and States have allowed the Lawes of the Church thus much force and interest in maters of marriage how much more soever they may have allowed then here is demanded It will be in vaine to argue from any Lawes of Christian States limiting the freedome of marriage or the exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in matrimoniall causes that they do not believe the Church to be by Gods Law a society the allowance whereof upon the premised considerations becomes requisite to the lawfull use of marriage among Christians For seeing both the Church and the State are subject to mistake the boundes of their concurrent interests in matrimoniall causes And therefore that there may be cause for the State by the force which it is indowed with to barre the abuse of Ecclesiasticall Power in the same or that the State may do it without cause It is ridiculous to inferre that they who limit the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Power doe not believe the Church or any lawfull Power of it in such causes independent upon their owne The same is to be said touching the Ordaining of Persons to exercise the Power and right of the Church and to minister the offices of Christianity to Christian People No man will refuse civile powers the right of maintainig the publick peace and their estates by making all such acts ineffectuall through the force which they possesse as may be done to the disturbance of it No man will refuse them as Christian the interest of protecting the Church against all such acts as may prove prejudiciall to the common faith or do riolate the common right of the Church according to which such Ordinations are to proceed But having proved that those Ordinations are made and to be made by virtue of that Power which the Apostles have left in the Church and which our Lord gave the Apostles As it hath been cleared what interest in this power their acts will allow to those severall qualities which they have setled in the Church So it remaines manifest that those who have the interest cannot otherwise be hindred by secular force in the exercise of it then by the violation of that Law of God whereby the society of the Church and those rights whereupon it is founded subsisteth Not as if I did imagine that this right hath been violated so often as Christian Princes or States have nominated persons to be ordained which they for the publick peace and good of the Church and to hinder disorderly proceeding in the Church have thought fit to name For we have eminent examples even in the happy times of the Church of Ordinations thus made to the incomparable benefit of the Church And why should not the reasons premised be thought sufficient to justify such proceedings But because it is alledged by some even that mean no harm to the Church that the right of all parties devolveth to the State by the profession of Christianity Which plea if it were good there would be no reason why the Church and all the right of it should not he thought to accrue to the State by declaring it self Christian Here I will remember one of the most eminent actions that ever was done in Europe against the right of the Church which is the Concordates between Francis I. King of France and Leo X. Pope The Pragmatick Sanction of Charles VII had maintained the right of the Church in that dominion against divers perogatives pretended by Popes but it maintained the Church also in the election of Prelates which that Prince had a desire to seize into his hands Hereupon an agreement passes the King to make good the prerogatives pretended by the Pope the Pope to accept and to maintaine the Nominations of Prelates which the King should make Which Concordates with what difficulty and after how many protestations and Remonstrances of the Clergy of the university of Paris and Soveraigne courts of the Kingdome they were accepted I leave to them that will take the paines to peruse the relation thereof historically deduced by Petrus Puteanus to judge Not forgetting what Thuanus one of the Principall ministers of that kingdome as prime President of the Parliament at Paris hath said to posterity in the first book of his Histories That so great a Prince after having dissolved the course of Ecclesiasticall Elections introduced into the Church by the Apostles never prospered in any of his greatest undertakings And if in the contention betweene the Emperors and the Popes about Investitures the case truly stated will evidence that the common right of the Church was trodden under foot as well as that of the Soveraigne I report my self to the conscience of any man that can judge whether it be reason to inferre that the proceeding of Christendome acknowledges no such thing as a Church rather then to conclude that the particulars whether well or ill done which is not my businesse here are to be tried by the reasons premised Now for the Power of Excommunication whereupon the force of all acts of the Church depends every man knowes that since Constantine received Christianity he and after him all Christian Princes and States do necessarily pretend the advancement of it by temporal penalties and priviledges of their indulgence Among which one is that punishment which in other States as well as in England a man incurres by being Excommunicate He that would challenge the power of doing this for the Church from the originall right of it must transgresse the principles premised whereby it may appeare that the Church is not able to do any thing of it selfe that requireth secular force or tendeth to alter any mans secular estate in the Common-wealth Neither is there any more evident character of that usurpation which the Popes in behalfe of the Church have been chargeable with then the inforcing of their acts with temporall penalties But all such attempts naturally resolve into the highest whereby some Popes have pretended that by the sentence of Excommunication subjects are absolved of the allegiance they owe their Princes and stand free and may stand obliged to take up armes against them as they shall disect Which is so farre from standing with any pretense of mine that I professe further to believe that no Soveraigne is liable to the utmost excommunication called the greater excommunication among Divines and Canonists though limited and defined by them upon sundry and
yet to all within the compasse of it So that if Christianity onely inable Christian Soveraigns to determine maters of Religion right the Power of determining will be the same in the Great Turk supposing him a lawfull Prince as in any Christian Soveraign And if his act oblige the Christians under him being well used why not ill used the Power being the same But though I commend him as a Philosopher for charging his own opinion with the greatest difficulties When hee answers that a Christian in that case shall stand bound to reserve the belief of his Christianity to himself for satisfaction of his conscience but to professe or act outwardly as his Soveraign commands I must so much detest this answer for a Christian that I cannot conceive any thing so destructive to the foundation of Christianity hath been published among Christian people since the time of Simon Magus and the Gnostiaks who when Christianity was not protected would do this and yet pretend to be Christians Onely the difference is that hee does it not but declares himself free to do it if the Soveraign commands it Which though it may seem to preserve him the quality of a Christian yet it is to be considered that by so declaring himself hee recalleth that solemn vow promise profession upon which hee was admitted to Baptisme or made a Christian in the Church of England For hee that is free to renounce the Faith at the command of his Soveraign cannot be bound by the promise of professing it unto death If therefore it prove that this promise is the substance of our whole Christianity hee will prove an Apostate if onely part of it an Heretick But I perceive hee is well enough aware of the Interest of his opinion for love whereof hee waives the Interest of Christianity For as all Divines have made the profession of Christianity the outward act of Faith the inward act whereof is to believe So upon this profession the visible act of Christianity the visible Society of the Church is built which there is no pretense for if this be not commanded nor against if it be This profession solemnized by the visible though mystical act of Baptisme that is signifying more to the understanding than the meer sight of the eyes can evidence being as S. Austine argues nothing else but the entring or dedicating of a Christian unto God in that visible body of Religion which the profession of Christianity designs Which consideration sets right the mistake that is commended to us from a true Principle that Soveraign Powers are the chief Teachers of their People For the relation Offices and Interests of Teachers and Scholars do not subsist but upon supposition of some certain Society contracted between Masters and Scholars as may appear by the instance of Masters and Apprentices the society between whom is grounded upon a contract of learning the Trade And no man denies that there is a Society between Soveraign Powers and their People lawfully to be contracted And that this Society makes the Soveraigns Masters and Teachers and the People their Scholars if it be rightly understood Though that it should make them no more would be an imagination so absurd that hee is not farr from that absurdity who takes notice of no more seeing all Teachers cannot make their Scholars learn as Soveraigns can do But this relation must be limited by the ground of civil Society which is of necessity no more than civil life though the grace of God by Christ addeth unto it a capacity of advancing everlasting life by maintaining the profession of Christianity which is meerly accessory to it as appears by all those Common-wealths that never were Christian And therefore that which civil Society teacheth is no more than that civil conversation which the maintenance of civil Society requireth If therefore there be any such thing as a Relation of Teacher and Scholar in Christianity which this argument supposeth that there is seeing that the common quality of Christian is no ground at all of that difference which the different denominations of Teacher and Scholar suppose of necessity it followeth that there must be a Society of the Church upon supposition whereof the qualities and relations of Teachers and Scholars in Christianity are grounded and subsist Which relations which Society did they not suppose Christianity to come from God but to be a religion either invented by the Soveraign as Mahumedisme by the first founder of that Power under which Mahumetane Princes now claim or inforced by the Powers that professe it as Heathenisme then were it essentially a Law of that civil Society the act whereof is all that obligation by which it standeth And truly hee that should believe Christianito be no more than a Religion taken up as a means to govern people in civil peace which is not onely the opinion of Machiavillians if any such there be who by believing no more of that Religion which they professe signifie that they believe no more of God or of Religion at all but also of those Philosophers if any such there be who do admit a Religion of all maxims which nature and reason hath taught all men to agree in but that which supposeth revelation from above onely as the Religion of their Countrey not as true I say hee that should believe this must necessarily believe nothing of the Church more than the Soveraign Power shall make it But as hee that makes outward Profession to be no part of it can never give account how the inward belief of it could be maintained and propagated to the worlds end as I suppose all Christians agree that God would have Christianity So hee that leaves the determination of all maters questioned in Christianity to the Secular Power that is Soveraign by dissolving the Society of the Church into the Common-wealth that is Christian and that without limitation because by Gods Law hee must by consequence oblige men to professe that as the means of Salvation which the Interest of State shall oblige every Soveraign to think necessary for the preservation of it And that is the answer that I shall make to him who shall object the same inconvenience to mee that the determinations of the Church are subject to fail To wit that there are three points of difference between it and the Secular Power in consideration whereof it is reasonable to believe that God should provide a Society of the Church for the maintenance of Christianity notwithstanding that hee leaves them subject to fail The first because this right cannot be said to be assigned the Soveraign Power by the Scriptures For in the Scriptures of the New Testament there is no mention made of Soveraign Powers that were Christian And as for the Old Testament if any man argue That the Power which the Kings of Gods ancient people had in marais of Religion the same Christian Princes have in Church maters not onely â—â—â—wer hath been made by denying the consequence
effect in which the action of the creature endeth will enforce that God is as properly said to give light as the sunne to burn as the fire to do that act which is essentially sinne as the man that sinnes And therefore at once not to sinne because we suppose his concourse tied by the originall Law of creation to the determination of his creature And to sinne as producing immediately whatsoever is in that action which is essentially sinne For unlesse the species or nature of the act importing generally no sinne were a thing subsisting by it self as by the understanding it is considered setting aside the sinne which the particular that is acted implyeth as Plato is supposed to have maintained his ideas it is impossible that he who doth the act which is essentially sinne should be said truly not to sinne The Law of concurring to the doing of sinne and producing the act which essentially importeth it necessarily drawing the imputation thereof upon him that freely tied himself by setling it Let it once be said therefore that God made the fire able to burn the sunne able to shine the will of man able to make a free choice as he is a reasonable creature and it will be very impertinent to require any action but that of the fire to the consuming of wood but that of the sunne to the dispelling of darknesse supposing God to maintaine or rather to issue every moment the ability of burning or shining once given his creature from his own spring head of being so long as his creature indureth And therefore if ever God made the will able to chuse the doing or not doing of this before that upon the direction not of right reason which directeth not to sinne but alwayes of reason for all choice supposes reason to direct it it is impertinent to suppose any thing requisite to the exercise of this freedome of choice but the maintenance of reason issuing from the fountaine of Gods Wisdome so long as the man continues a reasonable creature If the immediate concurrence of God to the action of his creature make the actions wherein the perfection of his creature consisteth much more the imperfections and faileurs of it a staine to his excellence much more shall the act of determining the choice of his creature free before it be determined impute to God whatsoever it importeth for the worse the imputation whereof or the better is a staine to his excellency And is it possible that God by making the creature capable of such imputations should depose himself from the Throne of his Godhead and set up his creature in his stead in making it able to act that either naturally without his immediate concurrence or morally also by determining that freedom by the use of his own reason and choice which he in no instance afore determineth Certainly they consider not what they grant themselves when they suppose that God made it able so to do when they make the abilities which he giveth unable to do their work till he determine them so to do so that being so determined before they determine themselves they cannot do otherwise And suppose it a contradiction that the will should choose that which no reason why it should chuse appeareth certainly when reason pronounceth the motive that appeareth to be sufficient the action that insueth cannot be said to proceed from a cause indifferent to act or not though the determination thereof be not peremptory till the act follow Now is there any necessity why God should interpose to determine the indifference of the cause otherwise then as inabling it to determine its own indifference Suppose then a sentence past in the Court of Reason importing not onely This is to be done But This shall be done Do we not see every moment protestations made by the sensuall appetite and acts entered of them by the judge Indeed if the matter of them do not bear a plea the sentence remaines But is it therefore necessary that execution follow Witnesse those that act against conscience Witnesse Aristotels dispute of incontinence placing the nature of it in doing the contrary of that which the judgement is resolved ought to be done as if the one could be absolutely the best the other the best at this time Witnesse Medea in Ovid when she saies Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor I see the better but I do the worse For the mouth of conscience is to be stopped with a pretense of repentance to come and so present satisfaction is clear gaine by the bargaine If at length it come to execution of the sentence I demand what it is that makes the resolution from thenceforth peremptory but the same reason that determined the choice afore unlesse we suppose new matter advanced in plea first and afterwards voided If that which was sufficient afore prove not effectuall till now it is not because any thing was wanting without which the will was not able to proceed but because reason to the contrary appeared considerable before I grant there be those that have so farre determined the indifference of their own inclinations that no reason to the contrary appeares considerable to delay execution of the sentence past long since But this appears by experience to take place as well in those who have degenerated to devils incarnate as those who have improved to saints upon earth And therefore cannot be attributed to the force of true good acting beyond the appearance which it createth in the mind because Gods immediate act directs it But partly to the habituall grace of the holy Ghost with the resolution of Christianity presenting true good as lovely and beautifull as indeed it is Partly to the custome of doing even those acts which without the assistance of God Spirit our nature cannot do Upon which as the habituall indowment of the holy Ghost followes by Gods gracious promise So there followes naturally a facility of doing even supernaturall actions which men habituate themselves to by the meer force of custome excluding the consideration of all that reason to the contrary that hath proved abortive and addle long since Which notwithstanding the choice remaines free by virtue of that originall freedome which determined the indifference of every man to those actions the frequenting whereof hath created an habit And this is the ground of that account which we owe that God showing sufficient reason why we ought to be Christians and the world to the contrary our choice hath followed for the better or for the worse For the efficacy of the said reasons on either side implies beside the sufficiency of them onely a supposition of that which comes to passe which the same reasons determine a man to do that remaine uneffectuall till the execution of sentence But if the will of God interpose to determine the will before it determines there can be no more ground for any account why it acteth or acteth not then the earth is to give why it
in mind to adde to the evidence for this all that I said in the beginning of this book to show that the condition of the covenant of grace implyeth a resolution generally to obay all that Christianity injoyneth For whatsoever delight in the true good God may prevent and determine the will with as prevent it he may and doth so as to take most certaine effect it must have in it the force of choice upon deliberation that makes God in steade of the world the utmost end of all a mans actions And in virtue of this choice whatsoever is done in prosecution of it consisteth in the like freedome of preferring it before the difficulties that impeach it which therefore he that will may follow and faile of his purpose He that might have transgressed and did not his goods shall be firme saith Ecclesiasticus XXXI 10. 11. Christianity then supposeth free choice as well to doe rather then not to doe as to doe this rather then that But Christianity cannot suppose this freedome till it can suppose the reason why every thing is to be done to appeare For that is it which must determine the indifference of mans will to proceede And therefore if there be any thing which without Christianity a man under Original sinne stands not convinced that it is to be done though supposing Christianity his freedome may extend to it yet not supposing the same it doth not This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XXIII A man is able to doe things truely honest under Originall sin But not to make God the end of all his doings How all the actions of the Gentiles are sins They are accountable onely for the Law of nature How all men have or have not Grace sufficient to save NOw to the second part of my position I say that though notwithstanding the inclination of Originall concupiscnce a man is able to do any kinde of act towards himselfe towards all other men or towards God yet is he not able to doe any for that reason for which it is indeed to be don And therefore that he is by his birth slave to sin and without the grace of Christ cannot become free of that bondage The first part of this position stands upon the words of S Paul Rom. XI 14 15. For when the Gentiles that have not the Law do by nature the things of the Law these not having the Law are a Law to themselves who show the worke of the Law written in their hearts their consciences bearing witnesse with them and their thoughts afterwards interchangeable accusing or excusing I know S Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius will have this to be said of the Gentiles that had been converted to Christianity But having shewed that the interpretation of the Scripture is not subject to the authority or judgâ—ment of particular Doctors and knowing that the tradition of the Church neither went before them nor hath followed after them to make the position upon which their interpretation proceeds a point of faith I follow pâ—remptory reason from the processe of S. Pauleâ— discourse Who having conclued the Gentiles to be liable to Gods judgement in case they imbrace not Christianity comeing to doe tâ—e like for the Jewes upon a supposition which he takes to be evident upon experience as appealing to their own consciences in it that they kept not Gods Law by which they hoped to be saved Proceeâ—s to compare with them the Gentiles whom he had convicted afore that he may prove the Jewes to have as much need of the Gospell as he had proved the Gentiles to have He saith then that the Gentiles have also a law of God which is the sense of Gods will which nature workes in their hearts And that as the Jewes did many things according to Gods written Law so did the Gentiles according to the Law of nature But if they could say that the Gentiles kept not the law of nature as hitherto he had proved No lesse might the Gentiles say that they kept not the Law by which they pretended to be righteous before God This you shall easily perceive to be S. Pauls businesse if you compare that which he writes Rom. XI 12 13. 17. 24. concerning the Jewes with that which went afore from Rom. I. 18. concerning the Gentiles Indeed when the Apostle afterwards compares the circumcision of the heart which makes a spiritual Jew with the Gentile who in his uncircumcision doth the same righteous things of the Law which the said spirituall Jew doth Rom. 11. 25 29. as I acknowledge that there is no spirituall Jew by the letter of the law but by the grace of the Gospell which though covertly had course and took effect though in a lesse measure under the Law so I must acknowledg that none but the Gentiles converted to Christianity can be compared to him But it is no prejudice to the Apostels argument to say that the Gentile is capable of that by the Gospell which the Jew could not boast of by the Law but by the grace of the Gospell under the Law Whereas if the apostle do not convict the Jew to have need of the Gospell by showing the Gentile to beere the same fruits by the Law of nature which the Jew brought forth by the law of Moses be leaves him utterly unconvicted of the necessity God had to bring in the gospell for the salvation of the Jew aswell as of the Gentile And therefore when S. Paul names the things of the Law he compâ—â—â—eth as weâ—l â—hoseduties that concerne God as those which concerne our selves and our neighbours Agreeing herein with the experience of all ages and nations whâ—ch allowes religion towards God to be a Law of all Nations as well as the â—ifference between right and wrong in civill contracts between honest â—nd shâ—mefull in mens private actions to be impressed by God upon their hearts from thence expressed in their Lawes and customes And truly it can by no meanes be denied that the difference of three sorts of good things honesta utilia â— jucunda things honest usefull and pleasurable is both understood and admitted amongst heathen nations That is to say that heathen nations doe acknowledg that there are some things which of themselves agreeing with the dignity of mans nature are more worthy to be imbraced then those which present us either with profit or pleasure without consideration of what beseemes us otherwise â—o which assuming this as evident by experience of the world that the reason of that which is honest or honourable as sutable with the dignity worth of mans excellency is not alwaies contradicted in occasions of action either by profit or pleasure there will be no possible reason for any man to deny that notwithstanding Originall concupiscence a man may be led by reason of honesty to do that which it requireth Whereof we have invincible evidence not onely in the Philosophy of the Greeks and the Civility of the Romans
meanes that makes the grace of Christ effectuall addresse it selfe especially to that estate o men in which our Lord Christ to whom they so become conformable appeared in the world And for that very reason to figure that estâ—te of mind which the Gospell requires the people of â—sraell were by Gods Law left unâ—uâ—nished of many helps of policy and force by which other nations maintain themselves free from servâ—tude that they might remaine obliged to depend upon Gâ—dâ— immediate assistance providence But it is to be said further That the greatest estates of the world being subject to the greatest crosses through want of successe and those great changes to which they are liable this way of preparation to the kingdome of heaven can no way seeme wanting to any estate when a begger is seen no lesse to doâ—e upon this world then an uncleane person is seen to doâ—e upon that whore by whom he is abused It is moreover to be said That the remembrance of death which must and the inconstancy of this world which may deprive us of all the benefits thereof being by Gods judgement the punishment of sin soures all the content of them that drench themselves deepest in the pleasures of this life and gives them just cause to forsake them all in case they stand not with the hope of the world to come And the very injoying of them being injoyed with that conscience which all Châ—â—stians have of Gods providence and the sense of his hand from whence they come is reasonably an advantage to those who injoy the best successe that can be expressâ—d in the course of this world both to become thankfull to God for it and also to prefer â—â—ernity before it Whereby it may appeare that the course of this world disposed by God upon the terms of the covenant of nature containes â—â— it those opportunities and advantages which the act of Gods providence by the grace of Christ knowes easily how to makâ— effectuall to the supernaturall purposes of it This is the place for the rest of that which I am to say of the opinion of Jansenius setling the efficacy of saving grace upon other grounds then those which I use The ground of it seems to stand upon the observation of S. Augustin de corrept gratia Chap. XI XII Distinguishing between the help of grace without which the worke of grace is not don that by which it is don auxilium sine quo non and auxilium quo and comparing the grace of Christ which cometh to effect notwithstanding originall concupiscence with the grace given Adam which might have come to effect had he pleased but came not notwithstanding his innocenâ—e as more powerfull in our weakenesse then that in his strength For hereupon he will have the grace of Christ to be onely that which takes effect confining that help without which the worke of grace cannot be don to the state of innocence as ouâ— of date now under oâ—iginall sin So that the freedome of the will is so far from being râ—quisite to â—he effects â—hereof that it hath no being but bâ— the meanes of it consisting in that free love of that which God commandeth because he commandeth it which it inspireth As on the other side the counâ—erfeit of it in them that sin without reluctation bâ—cause free from righteousnesse is nothing but the free lâ—ve of sin for the saâ—isfaction of concupiscence It is therefore in his opinion impertinent how necessarily the grace of Christ determineth the wil to imbrace the true good seeing it is the love of it the delight in it which grace worketh in the wâ—ll that determines it willingly and freely to imbrace it To tâ—ke the more distinct view of this plea let us put the case in him who running full speed in a course of sin is caâ—led by the preaching of the Gospell to become a Christian Or to the same purpose in him who being a Christian and runnâ—ng the same race is summoned by his profession and the grounds thereof to reâ—urne to it In this case can any man imagine that the reasons which move us all to be Christians shâ—uld raise no love of true good no dislike to sin no feare of vengeance no desire of everlasting hapâ—iâ—esse in him that considers them as they deserve Especially being managed by the spirit of God which knocketh at the dore of the heart by that meanes Or can any man question as it is â—he feare of vengeance that beginneth so it is the love of good for Gods sâ—ke that conâ—ummateth the resolution of becoming a true Christiâ—â— But the quâ—stâ—â—n being put about changing the chief end of a mans whole life and doings can it be supposed that any man is prevented with such a delight in true gooâ—nesse as iâ—stâ—ntly to abandon the lust which his bâ—sâ—nesse hath been hitherto to satisfie without demurre or regret I doubt not that God can immediatly crâ—aâ—e in any man that appearance of true good that shall without debate or looking back transport him to the prosecution of it That notwithstanding the Covenant of grace he may doe it Which though a rule to his ordâ—nâ—ry proceeding is no Law to his Soveraigne perogative But him that is thus sâ—ved though sâ—ved by grace yet we cannot count to be saved by the Covenant of grace Which proposeth a reward to them who are led by motives thereof notwithstanding the difficulties to the contrary though implying the worke of grace in him that overcometh And this no man more câ—earâ—ly acknowledgeth then Jansenius de gratia Christi VIII 2. where â—â— conâ—esseth that the predetermination of the will by the grace of Christ is not indefeasible but onely when it overcomâ—s as Gods predetermination according to the Dominicans is For by this difference whâ—ch in statiâ—g of this opinion I have not neglected afore the efficacy thereof cannot be attribuâ—ed to â—e â—aâ—ure of that help which overcometh aâ— of an other kind then that which pâ—oveth frustrate And therefore notwithstanding that large and elaborat work of his he hath left us to inquire further whence the efficacy of it proceedeth As having in effect onely resolved us wherein the efficacy of Grâ—ce consisteth in the nature of the formall cause Not from whence it proceedâ—th in the nature of the effective cause which the question indeed demandâ—th And truly the very consideration premised That as freedome from sin coâ—sists in the determination of the will to righteousnesse which the Grace of Chrâ—st effecteth so freedome from righteousnesse in the determination of it to sin which it acteth Inâ—orceth an other kind of freedome common to both estates not importing praise or dispraise but a capacity of either by doing that which no necessity determineth a man to doe And therefore that though the grace of Christs Crosse be the medecine yet till it be freely taken it worketh not the cure This is that freedome from necessity by the present condition of our nature the use whereof
presumption that assures him to be of the number of those that are predestinate to life everlasting For if any man say that he is assured that the act of his faith which he first conceived when he was first converted from sin to righteousnesse assures him of the grace of God because it was grounded upon that conversion to God which the Gospel requireth I will yeeld him all that But then I will demand of him who presupposeth true conversion to God according to the terms which the Gospel requireth that is to say Joyned with a sincere resolution of living for the future in that conversation that the Gospel prescribeth to be the condition of those promises which the Gospel tendereth I say I will demand of him upon what ground he can perswade himself that having professed Christianity and failed of it he remains in that favour of God which he obtained by professing that Christianity which he performeth not Indeed could it be said that the condition which the Gospel requireth is a thing that God immediately determines man to do without and before any determination of his owne I should not much marvaile that a man who is accepted by God upon such a condition should continue in favour till it come againe and make him hate that sinne for which he forfeited it But having proceeded thus farre in showing that the condition which the Gospel pel requires is no lesse then the totall change of a mans intentions from seeking the world to seek God and that the helps of Grace determine him to this no otherwise then by determining him to choose the better and leave the worse For me to say that waving this determination he remaines possessed of the promises which it produceth would be to say that there is no reason why any man should require repentance as a condition which justifying faith presupposeth And therefore it is very much to be admired that those who would seem truly religious should think it an abridgement to that security and confidence that peace and joy in the holy Ghost that boasting assurance which S. Paul professeth to be the priviledge of true Christians that they cannot maintaine it but upon just assurance that upon their true conversion to God there was just ground for it Nay further that God invites not men to Christianity upon faire termes unlesse he allow it For I demand Is it not an act of infinite mercy in God to set up a standard of confidence to all the world conditionally that they imbrace those termes which he propoundes out of his own meer goodnesse Is it not enough that be allowes them pardon upon condition of repentance That he allowes this to them that have forfeited their repentance never so often by repenting them of their repentance Especially to them who ground themselves upon their repentance as the condition whereupon they obtained his favour can it seem strange that his favour should become void when they repent them of their repentance Some object the case of Caleb and Josua who upon preseverance when theire fellowes fell away are assured of the land of promise to argue that under Christianity by perseverance in it a man may obtaine assurance of salvation such as that which Gods word createth to those who know it to be Gods word as to that which it assureth The difference of the case is this That they had Gods word for their assurance which I must needs have granted in S. Pauls case had I granted that the assurance of salvation which he professeth had been grounded upon a revelation made to him in particular that he should be saved But seeing I have grounded that assurance which he expresseth meerly upon that conscience of the common Christianity which he had I say that supposing Caleb and Joshua to be certaine of their inheritance in the land of promise by virtue of the promise there recorded which nothing hinders to imply that condition of walking according to the Law of God upon which it is made It is enough that the Gospel can assure us of eternall life upon supposition of that disposition of mind upon which S. Paul assures himself of it For if it be said that he who assures a man of Gods grace upon condition of doing what he can to hold it assures nothing seeing it is agreed upon that he which doth no more then he can shall certainely fall from it The answer is easie that nothing can be more injurious then to measure that which man can do when by the grace of God he hath been resolved to Christianity and thereupon hath received of God the promise of the habituall assistance of his Spirit for the performance of that which he hath undartaken upon confidence of Gods assistance by that which no man by meet nature is able to do For these promises being past upon supposition of that weaknesse and perversenesse by nature which they come into the world with it cannot be imagined that man can become void by the meanes of those subreptions and surprises of native concupiscence to which all men are liable Though if a man shall openly transgresse his Christianity in that which he must needs know that it cannot stand with it or if by continued negligence he cast off that regard that he hath professed to it can any reason be imagined why God should continue his favour or the inward effects of it but that which all men have to reconcile the present love of sinne to the promises of the word to come Wherefore though I cannor allow that saying which the Schoole hath allowed in many Doctors Facienti quod in se est Deus largitur gratiam Unlesse it be restrained to him that complies with the helps of preventing Grace whom I am perswaded God will not faile to bring to the state of Grace by following helps of Grace Yet there is another saying of the Schoole which I do utterly allow Deus neminem deserit nisi desertus That God leaves no man that leaves not him first Because it is evident in reason that the promise of the holy Ghost must come to nothing unlesse it may be held upon such conditions as are possible to him that comes to be a Christian with originall concupiscence That is to say so as not to forfeit it upon those surprises and subreptions which morally no man can avoid but upon departure from that which a man upon deliberation had professed afore He that considers how many times God in the Old testament delivers the Israelites from those oppressors to whom he had given them up for their transgressions of his covenant will never believe that upon every thansgression of Christianity he will break with those that sincerely desire to continue in his favour upon condition of it And he that considers that it is not commendable amongst men to break off friendship upon every offence with them whom a man hath entertained it with in matters of privacy and a long time will never
of the Church But you have also a possibility for the cure of sinne without the authority of the Church in as much as it had been too impertinent for the Apostle to have given a Precept of confessing sinne to one another if no sinne could be pardoned without having recourse to the Church The same is the effect of S. Johns words If a man see his Brother sinne a sinne not unto death For it is manifest that that sinne which one man sees is not notorious to the Church And yet the distinction which S. John maketh between the sinne which he commandeth a private Christian to pray for and the sinnes which he commandeth not the Church to pray for with the difficulties which the primitive Church had about it show that those sinnes which private advice cannot cure he would have brought to the Church And S. Johns meaning is that a man should pray for such sinnes of his Brother as he is sure are not to death Supposing first his Brother disposed by himself or by his advise to take the course that may qualifie him for forgivenesse But if it prove doubtful whether to death or not the Apostle by saying that there are some sinnes which he referreth to the Church whither to pray for pardon of them to wit in order to restoring them to the communion of the Church or not supposeth that they are reported to the Church by him that saw them when the Church saw them not But first supposing that they might possibly have been cured without bringing them to the Church And if these things be true then is the bringing of a sinner back from the error of his way according to that Precept of S. James which followeth an obligation that is to be discharged not onely by the office of a private Christian in convicting a private Christian of his sinne and of the means that he is to use for his recovery but also by bringing him to the Church if the case require it Which obligation will necesâ—atily lie upon the sinner himself in the first place But so that his own skill and fidelity to his own salvation may possibly furnish him his cure at home The tenor of our Saviours words throughly inforceth the same according to that which I observed in the first Book p. 140. that all Christians may be said to bind sinne by showing a Christian his sinne in case he refuse that cure which he that convicts him of his sinne convicts him that is to use And to loose sin in case he imbrace it But this in the inner Court of the Conscience between God and the soul For though the words of our Lord If thy Brother offend thee tell him of it between him and thee extend to private injuries obliging a Christian first to seek reparation by the good will of his party upon remonstrance of the wrong Then not to seek it out of the Church but by the Church yet they necessarily comprehend all sinnes which another man knows which to him are offences And therefore when our Saviour saith If he hear thee thou hast gained thy Brother it is manifest that the effect of his promise which followeth Whosoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven is obtained by the act of a private Christian without recourse to the publick authority of the Church And who will believe that the skill and fidelity of some private Christian may not furnish him as good a cure as he can expect to learn from any private Christian to whom he can have recourse And yet the process of our Lords discourse showes that the intent of it concerns in chiefe the exercise of the Keyes of Gods Church even upon those sinnes which are not notorious Which who so considers cannot refuse to grant that S. Pauls injunction for the restoring of him that is surprised in sinne concerns both the office of private Christiaâ—s and also of a whole Church and the Body of it And truly considering what hath been said concerning Scripture and Tradition it cannot seem strange that the Apostles leaving such authority with the Churches of their founding with generall instructions to those whom they trusted them with writing to the Bodies of those Churches things respectively concerning all Christians should give directions concerning all in generall terms which the visible practice of the said Churches might determine to the respective office of each quality and estate in those Churches No more then that our Lord finding the power of the Keyes not yet visible before Christianity should propose his instructions in that generality which onely his Apostles orders and the practice of their Churches upon their instructions determineth For the power of the Keyes in the Church inables it further untill the worlds end to limit further whatsoever shall appear to require further determination to the end of binding and loosing of sinne which it importeth according as the present state of the Church in every age shall require Let us now consider that though I have made evidence by consequence from the writings of the Apostles that remission of sinnes committed after Baptism may be obtained without the Keyes of the Church yet it is hard to find any expresse promise to that effect in their writings unlesse it be that of S. Johns first Epistle In which notwithstanding a limitation of that confession which the Apostle requires to the Church and to those that are trusted by the Church may reasonably be understood supposing the way of curing sinne by the ministery of the Church to have been customary and therefore known at that time And on the contrary though I do believe these consequences to be unreproveable yet it is to be considered that S. Pauls indulgence seems to be granted upon a particular occasion incident to distemper the ordinary course of the Church Namely the prevailing of some sinne to a faction of some great or the greatest part of the Church Which as it necessarily intercepted the use of the power of the Keyes though provided and ordained by God for the curing of the said sinnes so can it by no means argue that God hath not appointed it for the ordinary means of curing them As for the consequence which was made from the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and of the Gospels before the establishment of the Covenant of Baptism to show that they take effect also in sinnes after Baptism It may easily be considered that they take place no further then that disposition which is requisite to the forgivenesse of those sinnes whereby the grace of Baptism is violated may be supposed to be produced without helpe of the Church Which as I conceive I have proved to be possible so I conceive no man living can prove to be so easie that all those who stand in need of the remedy can presume upon so good ground as the safety of the soul requires to obtain it or to have obtained it of themselves without that helpe which
LXIII If a Clergy-man knowing that his wife hath committed adultery dismiss her not LXV Sodomites LXXI If a woman forsaking an adulterer whom she had married afore marry another LXXII If a Christian be slain or confiscate upon the information of a Christian LXXIII If a man accuse a Clergy-man to wit criminally as a subject a subject before secular Powers of a crime which he cannot prove LXXV We see by these very particulars an abatement of that which Tertullian stood upon that no adultery should ever be restored to communion again For here Penance is allowed adultery the first time by the VII And she that leaves her Husband and maryes another is allowed the communion in danger of death As also after her first Husband is dead by the IX And so are Virgines that turn Whores if afterwards they repent and abstain before death by the XIII So for murther a Christian Woman that kills her maid is admitted to Penance by the V. And a Catechumena that is a woman professing Christianity before Baptism that kills the childe conceived of adultery by the LXVIII So in Idolatry Those who onely wear such a Crown as those that sacrificed did wear but sacrifice not nor are at the charge of sacrificing by the LV. And truly that VII Canon which allowes Penance upon adultery onely the first time but refuses the communion of the second time even in danger of death is manifestly more severe then that Rule which divers of the Fathers Origen in Levit. XXV Hom. XV. S. Ambrose de Paenit II. 10. 11. S. Augustine Epist LIII LIV. Hanil L. do mention as in force and use at their time to wit that Penance cannot be done the second time For though a man be not readmitted to communion by Penance upon falling into the same or a more grievous crime the second time yet may be allowed the communion in danger of death Just as S. Ambrose ad Virginâ—â— Lapsam cap. VIII censures her to do Penance till death Innocent I. Pope Epist II. expresly affirms that this was done in consideration of the times because if men were lightly admitted after having fallen in persecution who would hazard life for the profession of his faith But that afterwards either the Church must be Novatians or grant Penance in danger of death And truly the breach which the Novatians made must needs oblige the Church to readmit unto communion in danger of death But if the Church were obliged to be strict when there was fear of persecution least all should fall away then was it obliged to abate when many were fallen away that the Body thereof might be recovered and restored And the words of Innocent that follow are sufficient to show how much the Church then presumed upon that Penance that Absolution that communion which a man was admitted to upon confession of sinne in danger of death For he saith Tribuetur ergo cum Poenitentiâ extrema Communio The last Communion therefore shall be allowed with Penaâ—ce Now it is evident by the Canons which Gratiane hath compiled XXVI Quaest VI. VII VIII Quaest VII cap I. that when a man was admitted to Penance upon confession in danger of death the communion was given him provisionally as well to obtain the grace of God to strengthen him in that exigent as for the quiet of his conscience but neverthelesse he stood bound over to perform the Penance which was or should be injoyned in case he recovered And therefore when Pope Caelestine I Epist I. invayes against those who refused Absolution and the communion in danger of death and Leo I. Pope Epist LIX orders that they be reconciled by giving them the Communion It is to be supposed that they understand this Penance to be injoyned in that case because the custome of the Church required it And this serves to void the doubt that may be made what the Keyes of the Church can have to do in the remitting of sinnes as soon as they are confessed which serve to loose sinne no further then they serve to procure and to create that disposition which qualifies for forgivenesse You saw afore in the second Book what difficulty the ancient Church made in warranting the salvation of those that repented upon their Death bed though they proceeded to submit themselves and their sinnes to the Keyes of the Church for their absolution and the communion of the Eucharist at their departure And though Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles cap. LXXX say freely that he is a Novation and not a Christian that presumes not faithfully of Gods mercifull purpose to save that which was lost even in him that departs upon confessing his sinne yet still this is but a presumption of what may be not a warrant of what is which the power of the Keyes regularly used promises Otherwise what would Gennadius say to the great Councill of Arles under Constantine which denies absolution in that case Can. I. as you see the Eliberitane Canons do True it is which S. Cyprian saith Nunquam sera est poenitentia si sit vera Repentance is never late if it be true But who will maintain that to be true which the terrour of death and remorse of conscience may rack out of him in whom the love of God and goodnesse hath not formed that resolution of maintaining his professed Christianity which makes God the end of all his actions when as all that is done in such a case by common experience may be imputed to a true grounded desire of avoiding punishment for his own sake with a superficiall desire of doing well for Gods sake Though on the other side it may be presumed that such a one is not first moved with dislike of his sinne when first he submits it to the Keyes of the Church but hath first done many such acts of sincere contrition as his own judgement directed him to for the gaining of Gods grace And at length to give himselfe further satisfaction resolves to humble himselfe not onely to the declaring of his own shame but to the undergoing of that Penance upon performance whereof the Rules of the Church also warrant his forgivenesse Between these contrary presumptions the primitive severity of the Church it appears refused absolution and the communion even in danger of death to some of the most grievous sins Which afterwards was thought fit to be abated Not proclaiming dispair to any sinner but to oblige him not lightly to presume upon pardon of that sinne which the Church could never presume that a man can repent him of enough For on the other side it appears what inconvenience the granting of reconcilement to all at the point of death may produce if the intent of the Church in binding over to Penance him that escapes be not understood Namely to give men cause to presume of pardon by the Church when the Keyes thereof cannot have their operation in producing the disposition that is requisite And thus the primitive practice of the Church
pardon and absolution and the blessing of the Church was given them who could not be induced to restore the Church goods seized by Hen. the eighth A thing excluding all pretence foâ— any presumption of true conversion in them whom it concerned and yet â—ound necessary for the restoring of the Body in unity But so that the said necessity made it to be evidently for the general good even upon these terms For maintaining those who could not be induced to do right in the point in the unity of the Church there was no reason why the Church should be thought to warrant that absolution as to God which it granteth as to the Church Because it appears that it is granted to avoid a greater mischief Leaving them who finde themselves concerned by the ministery of the Church the communion whereof they regain to be reduced to that course which may assure their absolution as to God But I use this instance onely ad hominem that my reason may be understood not intending to justifie the proceeding in point of right as I do undertake to justifie the Council of Nicaea in admitting the Meletians who were guilty of the crime of Schism not onely without satisfaction of their repentance but all in their ranks onely suspending the exercise of their offices till those that were presently possessed should depart Or as I might undertake to justifie Pope Melchiades in offering to do the like for the Denatists for which he is commended by S. Austine Epist XLVII which the Church supposing Schism to be a mortall sinne that is of that number which the now Church of Rome injoyns Penance could not do upon other terms then I have said and if it had thought no sinne reconcileable without the Church could by no means have done The same is to be said of those that are excommunicated and cast out of the Church without cause For as no man ever doubted that to be a case which comes to pass so can no Christianity allow that a man should be excluded the Kingdom of God for another mans fault He therefore that hath the knowledge in Christianity and the resolution for it to keep himself to the duty of a Christian in such a case though being destitute of all advantage by the communion of the Church it is difficult to do he I say shall obtain pardon of sinne without help of the Church and not by desiring the Ministery thereof otherwise then as not desiring of communion with the Church remains a barre to the work of Gods grace In fine consider the primititive order of the Church and that of the Church of Rome at this day by the law of secret confession once a year For he that considers how much businesse the reconciling of a Penitent made the Church in those days will never imagine that it could be presumed that all sins which now come under secret confession should then be expiated by the Keys of the Church I have given you the testimony of Origen directing to make choice of some of the Presbyters of the Church to make acquainted with secret sinne that if he should require Penance to be done in the face of the Congregation his prescription might be followed This inforces us to understand the other part of the alternative that if he required no such thing it should be enough to take that course of humiliation and mortification which he should prescribe in private And truly one of the Canons of the Council at Elvira XXXII orders Penance to be injoyned by a Priest not by the Bishop Which I understand to be in private and not in publick Allowing it very probable that this is not properly counted Penance but onely suspension from the Eucharist injoyned by some of those Canons in some case XXI L. LXXVII and is opposed to Penance Can. XIV So that probably one of the Presbyters might injoyn it in secret by these Canons But otherwise seeing that all this while there was no Penance but by order of the Bishop or as in some of S. Cyprians Epistles of the Bishop and Presbyters sometimes when the case was difficult as in Firmilianus quoted afore by order of a Synod what appearance is there in common reason that all sinnes that now come under secret confession could then come under the Keyes of the Church In the order which Nectarius abolished any man may discern there was nothing but a course of abridging publick businesse of the Church by referring Penitents to one Priest set aside to that purpose When that course was abrogated still they had recourse to the Bishop and Presbyters but it is manifest so many could not be dispatched as afore And now it is manfest that to require of every man to confesse all the sinnes that ever he did since he confessed last would be an unsufferable torture to mens consciences And therefore it is onely required that they confess those which they have in remembrance I ask then how those which they have not in remembrance come pardoned If by inward repentance restoring the disposition of a Christian it is that which I seek If by being willing to confesse them if I had them in remembrance he that is not qualified for remission of sinnes as Christianity requireth is not qualified becauâ—e he would have been so qualified had it not been his own fault I adde further that it is at this day resolved by Casuists of very good note that a Penitent is bound in conscience to impose upon himself further Penance then that which his Confessor injoyneth in case he be satisfied in conscience that he hath not imposed that which is sufficient For in the case of clave errante it is manifest that there is no remission by the Keyes and yet remission is to be had by the Gospel antecedent to the Church If then a mans own Christianity may supply that means of forgivenesse which the Keys of the Church fail of procuring it is manifest that the use of them is not absolutely necessary for every particular Christian though absolutely necessary for the whole Body of the Church Add hereunto the restimonies of Ecclesiasticall Writers by which it appears that as they maintained the discipline of Penance which I also would maintain so farre as truth will allow so they supposed remission of sins attainâ—ble without it The exhortations of Tertullian and S. Ambrose to Ecclesiastcal Penance will no way inferr that it was then actually a Law in force that all sins that void the grace of Baptism should be made known to the Church for the obtaining of pardon by the Keyes of it For how ill doth iâ— become any Law to begge obedience by alledging reasons which must inforce it if they be good were there no Law But on the other side what express testimonies what necessary consequences there are to inferr that there was no such Law in the primitive Church I remit the Reader to the Collections of the Aâ—â—hbishop of Spalato 5. VII 10-20 and
his presence in the Church at the beginning of Christianity Afterwards it was provided that the oyl should be consecrated by the Bishop with the Prayers of the Church in virtue whereof whither applyed by the Priests or by private Christians there might be hope that it might operate S. Chrysostome in Mat. Hom. XXXII Eth. comparing the entertaining of the Apostles at home there mentioned with obeying their successors in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For both this Table is farre more precious and pleasant then that and this light which all know who anointing themselves with oyl seasonably and with faith have avoided diseases S. Austine de Civ XXII 8. Hipponensem quandam virginem scio cum se oleo perunxisset cui pro illa orans Presbyter lacrymas suas instillaverat mox à daemonio fuisse sanatam I know a certain maid of Hippo hauing anointed her selfe with oyl in which the Priest praying for her had dropt his tears was straight cured of a Devil Here is nothing but the cure of the body by consecrated oyl only that the Priest who gave it the maid prayed for her when he gave her it Therefore when Hilarion cured the Son in law and daughter of Constantia with oyl we are to understand the consecrated oyl with which the hinds and shepheards of Aegypt cured themselves of the bitings of Serpents by his direction Hieron in Hilarione Nor did Malachias in S. Bernard pretend any more thereby then bodily cure Therefore I do not marvail that Innocent I. should speak of unction without Penance who seems expresly to grant that sick persons should anoint themselves with that oyl which the Church should send them for that purpose To wit upon supposition that they need not the Keyes of the Church for the cure of their sinnes For Frier Thomas of Walden de Sacram. Tomo II. cap. penult understandeth him as indeed his words impart if you offer them no violence and the practice of the practice of Egypt who are said to have sent it to the sick and of the Greek Church in giving it to those that are well seems to imply to wit that as when the oblations of those who cannot be present at Church are received they are partakers â—of the benefit of those prayers which the Eucharist is celebrated with because they are thereby acknowledged to belong to the communion of the Church So the sending of that unction which they apply to themselves importeth the blessing of the Church to go along with their Prayers which it is used with Thus much for certain when the Greeks contend that this unction belongs also to those that are well as the complement of their Penance arguing from the act of the Apostles who anointed those to whom they preached repentance and allowing it to the sick as that which for the present may be applyed unto them when as the exigent of their case will not allow them to perform Penance as you may see by Arcudius V. 4. they do clearly enough express the reason which I give CHAP. XII The ground of the Right of the Church in Matrimonial causes Mariage of one with one insolubly is a Law of Christianity The Law of Moses not injoyning it The Law of the Empire not aiming at the ground of it Evidence from the primitive practice of the Church IN the next place we are to consider what Interess the Church hath in the Mariages of Christians And that without granting Mariage to be one of the Sacraments of the Church or any thing implying what a Sacrament is and by consequence how many there are But yet supposing for disputations sake that it were a Sacrament that is not supposing the contrary but demanding nothing but that which must be granted whither it be so or not that our discourse may proceed Two things I suppose the one as proved in due place That the Church is by Gods Law a society which all Christians are bound to have communion with And that God hath given a peculiar Law concerning the Mariage of one with one and that indissoluble to all Christians For upon supposition hereof all the interest of the Church in Matrimoniall causes standeth Which is therefore now to be proved thence inforcing that whatsoever grows questionable among Christians concerning Mariage upon the account of that Law which is proper to Christianity belongs to the Church to determine For it is not my purpose to say that Christian States have nothing to do in Matrimoniall causes But that the Interess of the State and of the Church though not distinguishable by the persons when the fame persons belong to both are to be disâ—inguished by the causes and grounds and considerations upon which they arise and stand So that what comes from a reason concerning civill society belong to the State what from the Law which Christians onely acknowledge to the Church to limite and determine If then any difference arise among Christians concerning Mariage that supposeth not some provision brought in by the Gospel I will not undertake that the determination of it belongs to the Church by Gods Law On the contrary therefore that which becomes questionable upon that account I challenge to belong to the Church to determine that is to those that have right to determine on behalfe of the Church For I appeal to the common sense and experience of the world to evidence this That when any Law is given to any society or body founded upon reasons which afore the founding of it were not in force there will of necessity fall out new Cases in which it will be questionable whether the reason of the Law is to take place or not And let the Christian world be witnesse whether it be not requisite to acknowledge that if Christianity come from God then God hath provided a course to secure Christians in conscience that their Mariages are not against the will of God Therefore according to Aristoles reason the law which God hath given Christians concerning Mariage being generall and the cases which mens particular occasions produce being infinite and so not determined by the Law it followeth that they are referred by God to the determination of that society that is of those that act in behalfe of it with right to conclude it which God hath founded upon the acknowledgement of those Lawes whereof this is one In the first place then I am not afraid to undertake that the Law of the Mariages of Christians that they be of one with one and indissoluble is given by our Lord to his Church and maintained by it For I am confident to make evidence out of that which is received by all Christians together with the premises that it could neither have come into the world but by Christianity nor have been maintained so inviolable as it hath been by the Canons of the Church I say then that it is impossible for any reasonable man to imagine that so difficult a Law as for all men to be tied
secure them that put away their wives under the law in point of conscience to God And it is certain if that be true which I have setled in the second Book concerning the inward and outward the civill and spirituall obedience of God under Moses law and the difference between them that it could not alwaies do it For could he that knâ—w he put away his wife for â—ust or for wrath or for advantage think that he loved his wife whom all men know they are to love above others being bound to love all Israelites as himselfe But on the contrary he that had lighted upon a wife of crooked conditions and having done his reasonable indeavour to reclaim her had found her incorrigible how should he think he did her wrong using the power that Gods law had given him so moderately in putting her away Had God given them a Law which could in no case be used without sinne For had the nakednesse which the law allowed for a just cause of divorce signified nothing else but that which our Lord by his Gospel allows what question remains whither the conscience be secured by it or not But among Christians covenanting with God upon express promises of the world to come under a 〈◊〉 and more excellent rule of obedience with promise of helps proportionable to go through with it it is marvail if an obligation be acknowledged of bearing with patience the maners of the wife vvhich a man himselfe chuses never giving over the hope of reducing her to reason until she falsifie the trust of wedlock That when the mater is come to that point it should no more be mater of precept but mater of counsail to indure such a wife when the infamy of a mans bed my be saved and hope of reclaiming her may remain So that the question whether the meaning of Moses his words be the meaning of Christs is the same in this particular of mariage vvhich the Christians have generally with the Jews whether our Lord Jesus persiting the Lavv by bringing in the Gospell be the Christ or not The resolution whereof as it necessarily infers the difference between them which I have setled in the second Book so that difference vvill as necessarily inferre this provision of our Lord to be severall from that of Moses Out of Origen in Mat. VII a pleasant conceit is alleged Forsitan audax aliquis Judaicus vir adversus doctrine Salvatoris nostri dicet quoniam Jesus dicens Qui cunque dimi serit uxorem suam exceptâ causâ fornicationis facit â—â—â— machari permiâ—it uxo em dimittere quem ad modum Moyses quâ—m retulit propter duritiem cordiâ— Judâ—orum hoc prâ—cepisse Et hanc ipsam inquiet esse causam fornicationis per quam juste uxâ—r à viro dimittitur secundum quam Moyses praecepit dimitterâ— uxorem si inventa fuerit res turpis in â—â Perhaps some bold Jewish fellow may say crossing our Saviours Doctrine that even Jesus saying Whosoever shall send away his wife but for fornication makes her comâ—â—it adultery hath given leave to put a wife away even as Moses who he relareth did command this for the Jews hard-heartednesse And will say that this is the very same cause of fornication for which a wife is justly put away by a Husband according to which Moses also commands to put away a wife if a foul thirg be found in her Whence it is argued that there were then that expounded our Lords words to the same intent vvith Moses That there were Origen sayes not that there might be I grant But they must be Jews and adversaries to our Saviours Doctrine that should do it For he that should say so must blame our Saviour for pretending to contradict Moses vvhich Origen supposeth no Jevv could deny saying indeed the same thing Othervvise he must contradict the Synagogue for allowing divorce where Moses allowed it not if the soul thing which Moses allows divorce for be onely that fornication for which our Lord allows it Then he that would make use of Origen to prove that the terms of our Lord and of Moses may signifie the same thing must first answer the Argument wherewith he convinces him that thus should blaspheme our Lord. Adultery saith he is no cause of divorce but of death by Moses law therefore that dishonest thing for which the Law allows divorce is not adultery In fine he that examines all that is said or can be said of the diverse significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scriptures will find but two the one proper in the case of man and wife the other by translation to the alliance between God and his people perpetually compared to a mariage all over the Scripture That this signification cannot take place here this may serve to evidence That the cause upon which our Lord allovvs divorce must be something betvveen the Wife and the Husband as it vvas in the Lavv For vvould it not be impertinent to punish transgression of Gods Covenant vvith dissolution of vvedlock The proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is larger in the Scriptures then according to the Atrick Greek to signifie all uncleannesse at the mater requires For vvhen S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. V. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a man to have his Fathers wife would not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ordinary Greek But it is no marvail if the Jews that spoke Greek call all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which their usuall language called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Lords words is exactly expounded by Hesychius and the Etymologick turning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who being Christians do usually expound that proâ—erty of the Greek which is usuall among Christians out of the Bible And this is demonstrated to be the signification here meant because it is not possible to show that ever there was any opinion rule or practice received in the Church that it is lawfull to divorce but in case of Adultery I do truly conceive that there was anciently a difference of opinion and practice in the Church whither it be lawfull to mary again upon putting away a wife for adultery or whether the bond of mariage remain undissoluble when the parties are separated from bed and bord for adultery But this difference argues consent in the rest that is that excepting the case of Adultery there is no divorce to be among Christians Neither do I now speak of the base times of the Eastern Empire of which I will give you such an account as I find most reasonable when I come to the difficulty that is proposed I say it may appear that the Church originally granted no divorce but for adultery whether the innocent party or whether both were allowed to mary again living the other or not It is acknowledged by our Author that Tertullian cont Marc. IV. 34. de Pudicitiâ— cap.
great but I mean in Christ and in the Church The mariage of Adam with Eve was intended by God for a figure and prophesie of the incarnation of Christ and his spiritual mariage with the Church by virtue of it as the Scripture wheresoever it speaks of the first and second Adam declareth Therefore as I said their mariage was an indissoluble union of one with one as the mariage of Christians which reviveth it Be the mariage of Christians then a Sacrament as much as any man would have it to be be it a commemoration if Adams was a prediction of the incarnation of Christ and of his mariage with the Church Let it contain a promise of Grace to them that exercise it as Christians should do it is therefore indissoluble in the point of right I confesse that is to say it is the profession of an obligation upon the parties to hold it indissoluble But is it therefore indissoluble in point of fact May not the obligation so professed be transgressed And is not mariage a civill contract even among Pagans and Infidels and that by Gods appointment And may not the Law which God â—â—ath restrained the mariage of Christians to presuppose the conditions of a civill contract And are not civill contracts void when one party transgresseth the condition on which they are made Or cannot mariage signifie the mariage between Christ and his Church cannot the observation of it oblige God to give grace unlesse we understand all such conditions thereby to be extinguished The union of the word with our flesh the union of Christ with his Church depends onely upon that effectuall Grace which himself purposed from everlasting because as I said upon supposition of our perseverance The union of Wife and Husband signifies it no lesse though the obligation being transgressed it may become void But how shall marying as a Christian should mary be the means to obtain Grace unlesse as well the union as that promise may be forfeited by transgressing the condition upon which it is made The cheife difficulty then lies in the words of our Lord Mat. V. 30. 31. XIX 3-9 in which I must in the first place consider that there are diverse things observable in them to show that our Lord though he declared not openly that the Gentiles should imbrace Christianity and the Jews refuse it yet neverthelesse propounds it so that he must be understood to intend it for the Gentiles so converted as well as for the Jews That of Origen in the first place For the Law appointing death for the punishment of adultery what need the exception of adultery to the Jews among whom divorce for adultery was death Secondly his words in S. Mark X. 11. 12. Who so â—utteth away his wife and marietâ— another committeth adultery against her and if a wife put away her Husband and mary another she committeth adultery For by the Jews Law though the Husband might put away his wife yet the wife could not put away her Husband And though Josephus report that Herods sister Salome sent her Husband a Bill of divorce yet he reports it as that which never was done afore and therefore cannot be thought to have come to a custome in our Lords â—ime Thirdly how could our Lord say according to the Jews Law that he who maried a woman divorced committeth adultery when as what hindred a man then to mary a divorced wife out of meer charity to keep her from committing adultery Lastly if we consider S. Pauls wordes whereby he teacheth as I have showed that the wife having the same interesse in the Husband as the Husband in the wife by the Christian Law the wife can no more leave her Husband then the Husband the wife 1 Cor. VII 1-5 I. 11. it will appear that his Doctrine extending to the condition of man and wife by the then Romane Law is derived as it must needs be derived from this sense of his Masters Seeing then that divorce not onely among the Jews but among â—he Romanes was alwayes understood to dissolve the bond of Mariage what appearance can there be that our Lord when he sayeth He that putteth away his wife unlesse for adultery and marieth another committeth adultery and he that marieth her who is put away committeth adultery intendeth not to extend the exception to marying again as well as to putting away And therefore that he who putteth away for adultery she who is not put away for adultery may mary again For if those whom he spoke to could understand nothing by divorce but that which they saw and the divorce which they saw or heard of inabled all parties to mary again then that divorce which the exception of fornication allows by our Lords law understanding that exception inables to mary again Two reasons are opposed from our Lords words First in S. Mark X. 12. S. Luke XVI 18. the exception is not expressed and yet it is said He that puts away his wife and maries another commits adultery To which it is answered That the Gospels are as S. Justine the Martyr calls them remembrances of the sayings and doings of our Lord the effect whereof was delivered to and received by them who were baptized as the Law of Christianity And that therefore in recording them it was thought enough to remember the heads of those things which were undertaken to be believed and observed That therefore all that undertake to expound the four Gospels do use to adde whatsoever any of them hath more then the one which he hath in hand to make up his sense In fine therefore that in this point the sense of our Lord is not to be measured by that which S. Mark and S. Luke hath lesse but that which S. Matthew hath more And therefore that when our Lord saith He that puts away his wife and maries again commits adultery And he that maries her that is put away commits adultery He is to be understood with this exception unlesse for adultery It is objected secondly That by this account she that is put away for adultery may mary again and neither her selfe noâ— he that maries her be chargeable with adultery which were a gross inconvenience that by the Law of our Lord a woman by committing adultery or man in like case should advantage himselfe to mary again with a good conscience For if it be true He that puts away but for adultery and maries again and he that maries her who is put away but for adultery commits adultery then will it follow that he who puts away his wife for adultery and maries another and he that maries her that is so put away commits no adultery To which I answer that it follows not that our Lord so saying should mean this consequence But rather that he who maries her that is put away for adultery commits adultery much more Though he who puts her away is no cause of it neither chargeable with adultery for marying again For if the Husband be
chargeable with adultery when the wife maries again being not put away for adultery why is he chargeable with it that put her away for adultery If because he maries again not putting his wife away for adultery putting her away for adultery why is he chargeable with it The difficulty will be Then is the knot of wedlock tied to the one party and loose to the other which seems a knot more indissoluble then that of wedlock but is indeed none at all if we distinguish between the metaphor of a knot tied and the obligation signified by it For though the act of consent to the contract of wedlock is the act of two parties whereof a third that is God is depositary to discharge the innocent and to charge the guilty yet the bond or obligation which is contracted by it is answerable severally by each party in the judgement of God And is there the same reason that God should call him to account for adultery who thinks himselfe free of that contract which he stood to till his party transgressed it as her that gave him cause to think himselfe free by transgressing it The difficulty then rests in the meaning of S. Paul when he châ—rgeth the wife not to depart from her Husband If she do to abidâ— unmaried or to be reconciled to her Husband And the Husband not to put away his wife 1 Cor. VII 12. And that having before charged maried people not to part even for devotion but for a time for fear of temptation by concupiscense For can it then be imagined that he allows them to part upon any occasion but that of adultery Therefore those that are parted for adultery he forbids to marry again And these are the Texts that have moved S. Jerome Epist XLVII to be of this mind But S. Austine further expounding the Sermon in the mount upon this supposition as he himselfe professes in the beginning of his books de adultrinis conjugiis written expresse to maintain it and desiring to show how our Lords Law injoyns the same with his Apostles imagines that our Lord might mean spirituall fornication or adultery according to which the Psalme saies Thou hast destroyed all that commit fornication against thee when he gave it Which sense compriseth all sinne that carieth with it a construction of departing from our Covenant with God both in truth and according to S. Austine de Sermone domini in monte I. 16. Whereupon the Mileritane Canon XVII speaks thus Placuit ut secundum Evangelicam Apostolicam disciplinam ueque dimissus ab uxore neque dimissa à marito alteri conjungantur sed ita maneant auâ— sibi reconcilientur Quod si contempserint ad poenitentiam redigantur In qua causà legem Iâ—perialem petendam promulgari It seemed good that according to the discipline of the Gospel and the Apostles neither he that is dimissed by his wife nor she that is dimissed by her husband be wedded to another but remain so or be reconciled to one another which if they neglect that they be put to Penance and that request be made for an Imperial Law to be published in the case Where alleging the Gospel and S. Paul both it is plain the Canon proceeds upon the opinion of S. Austine For he was at this Council and in all probability had the penning of the Canons That which moved them to be of this opinion I confesse moves me to be against it I cannot be perswaded that S. Paul in this place and our Lord in the Gospel speak both to one and the same purpose All subjects of the Romane Empire when S. Paul writ had power to leave their wives or their husbands at pleasure without giving the Law account But supposing them Christians were they not to give God account were they not to give the Church account Certainly if they maried again they must give the Church account because our Lord hath said He that leaveth his wife but for adultery and marieth again committeth adultery For of adultery account is to be given the Church And truly who parts with a wife it is great odds does it out of a desire to mary another which all the Church agrees he cannot do unlesse she be an adulteresse part of it sayes further though she be he cannot do it But if he mary not another but part with his wife he must give God account whether he be bound to give the Church account or not And this account S. Paul instructs how to give He will not have Christians to part bed and bord much less to repudiate to part families to send one another a way with that which they brought but if they will needs try how good it is living unmarried he would have them know that they could not mary elsewhere because of our Lords Law which in case of fornication he silently excepteth For to me it seemeth manifest that our Lord in case of fornication provideth for the reparation of the party wronged whose bed and issue is concerned restraining the divorce which the law allowed onely to the transgression of mariage inâ—cted by the institution of Paradise when two continue not one flesh But S. Paul for the conscience of particular Christians upon what terms they may or ought to forbear â—ohabitation to wit so as they mary not again Which is exhortation enough to set aside animosities and return to bed and bord again S. Austine and Venerable Bede upon the Gospel following him confesse that according to their interpretation our Lord permits to part not for the fornication which the other party hath done but for that which himselfe may do To wit which by the company of an ill disposed yoke-fellow he may be moved to do So divorce according to this opinion is grounded upon the precept of the Gospel If thine eye offend thee pluck it out and is that which the Church of Rome at this day maintaineth by the XXVI Session of the Council of Trent Can. VIII and that as I think according to S. Paul onely that he leaves it to the Conscience of particular Christians without interessing the Church the interest whereof I conceive cannot be excluded though S. Paul here provide not for it as Cardinall Bellarmine de Matrimoniâ— I. 14. disputeth But in case of adultery it never was nor ever could seem questionable so as S. Paul to decide it whither a man might so put away his wife or no all Civill Law that then was counting him accessory to the stain of his bed and issue that did not And thereupon the ancient Canons of the Church imposing penalties upon any of the Clergy who being allowed to dwell with their wives should indure an adulteresse And therefore I conclude that S. Paul though he allow not either husband or wife to part with wife or husband as to cohabitation without renouncing the bond of wedlock no not for the state of continence as S. Austine very well argues if not for continence then for no
of Christians that is of the whole Church occultae quoque conjunctiones id est non priâ—s apud Ecclesiam professae juxta maechiam fornicationem judicari perclitantur Among us even clandestine mariages that is not professed before the Church are in danger to be censured next to adultery and fornication And therefore Ad uxorem II. ult Unde sufficiamus ad senarrandam faelicitatem ejus matrimonii quod Ecclesia conciliat How may we be able to declare the happinesse of that mariage which the Church interposeth to joyn de Monogamiâ cap. XI Quale est id matrimonium quod eis a quibus postulas non licet hahere What maner of mariage is that saith he speaking of marying a second wife which it is not lawfull for them of whom thou desirest it to have Because it was not lawful for the Clergy who allowed the people to mary second wives themselves to do the same Ignatius Epist ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It becometh men and women that mary to joyn by the consent of the Bishop that the mariage be according to the Lord and not according to lust It hath been doubted indeed whether we have the true Copy of Ignatius his Epistles or not whether this be one of them or not But that Copy being found which Eusebius S. Jerome and others of the Fathers took for Ignatius his own and hath all that the Fathers quote just as they quote it nothing of that which stood suspected afore to refuse them now is to refuse evidence because it stands not with our prejudices Not that this power of the Church stands upon the authority of two or three witnesses These were not to be neglected But the Canons of the Church and the custome and practice of the Church ancientâ—r then any Canons in writing but evidenced by written Law which could never have come in writing had it not been in force before it was written suffer it not to remain without evidence In particular the allowance of the mariages of those who were baptized when they were admitted to Baptism evidenced out of S. Austine the Constituions and Eliberitane Canons evidenceth the Power of the Church in this point unquestionable And therefore against the Imperiall Lawes I argue as against the Leviathan that is if any man suppose that they pretend to secure the conscience of a Christian in marying according to them upon divorce Either the Soveraign Power effects that as Soveraign or as Christian If as Soveraign why may not the Christians of the Turkish Empire divorce themselves according to the Alâ—oran which is the Law of the Land and be secure in point of conscience If as Christian how can the conscience of a Christian in the Eastern Empire be secured in that case wherein the conscience of a Christian in the West cannot be secured because there is no such Civil Law there the Christianity of both being the same For it cannot be said that the Imperiall Lawes alleged were in force in the West after the division of the Empire I argue again That they cannot secure the conscience but under the Law of our Lord as containing the true interpretation of fornication in his sense And can any man be so senselesse as to imagine so impudent as to affirm that the whole Church agreeing in taking the fornication of maried people to signifie adultery hath failed but every Christian Prince that alloweth and limiteth any other causes of divorce all limiting severall causes attaineth the true sense of it Will the common sense of men allow that Homicide Treason Poysoning Forgery Sacriledge Robbery Mans-stealing Cattle-driving or any of them is contained is the true meaning of Fornication in our Lords words That consent of parties that a reasonable cause when Pagans divorced per bonam gratiam without disparagement to either of the parties can be understood by that name For these you shall find to be legall cause of divorce by those acts of the Emperours Lastly I argue If these causes secure the conscience in the Empire by virtue of those Laws why shall not those causes for which divorce was allowed or practiced amongst the ancient French the Irish the Welch the Russes do the like For that which was done by virtue of their Lawes reported there cap. XXVI XXX is no lesse the effect of Christian power that is Soveraign He that could find in his heart to tell Baronius reproving the Law of Justine that allowed divorce upon consent that Christian Princes who knew their own power were not so easily to be ruled by the Clergy p. 611. can he find fault with the Irish marrying for a year and a day or the Welch divorcing for a stinking breath Had he not more reason to say that knowing their power they might chuse whether they would be Christians or not The dispute being What they should do supposing that they are Christians And therefore it is to be maintained that those Emperours in limiting the infinite liberty of divorces by the Romane Law to those causes upon which dowries should be recoverable or not being made for Pagans as well as for Christians did as it were rough hew their Empire to admit the strict law of Christianity in this point And that this was the intent and effect of their acts appears by the Canons which have been alleged as well in the East as in the West made during the time when those Laws were in force For shall we think the Church quite out of their senses to procure such Canons to be made knowing that they could not take place in the lives and conversations of Christians to the effect of hindring to mary again If we coulde so think it would not serve the turn unlesse we could say how S. Basil should testifie that indeed they did take place to that effect and yet the Civill Law not suffer them to take effect From our Lord Christ to that time it is clear that no Christian could mary again after divorce unlesse for adultery some not excepting adultery In the baseâ— times of that Empire it appears by the Canons of Alexius Patriarch of C P. and by Matthaeus Blastares alleged by Arcudius p. 517. that those causes which the Imperiall Lawes allowed but Gods law did not took place to the effect of marrying again But that so it was alwaies from Constantine who first taxed legall cause of divorce nothing obliges a man to suppose For though the Emperours Law being made for Pagans as well as for Christians might inable either party to hold the dowry yet the Christian law might and did oblige Christians not to mary again The Mileuitane Canon showes it which provideth that the Emperour be requested to inact that no Christian might mary after divorce For this might be done saving the Imperial Laws But when we see the Civil Law inforce the Ministers of the Church to blesse those Mariages which the Civil Law allows but Gods Law makes adulteries the party that is put away
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the