Seventhly It is a scandal and makes way for Heathen Idolatry 549 7. Of picturing God the Father and the H. Trinity 550 The testimonies of Tertullian Eusebius and S. Hierome alledged in the Dissuasive vindicated from the Romanists exceptions as also the testimonies of S. Austin Theodoret Damascen Nicephorus 552 553. An answer to that reply of theirs of painting the Essence of God the Father 550 551. The Doctrine and Practice of Repentance Chap. I. THE Foundation and Necessity of Repentance 573 Sect. 1. Of the indispensable Necessity of Repentance in remedy to the unavoidable transgressing of the Covenant of Works 573 2. Of the possibility or impossibility of keeping the Precepts of the Gospel 576 First The Law of God is naturally possible to be kept but not morally 576. n. 15. ad 32. Secondly How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting a Law so impossible 580. n. 32. ad 35. Thirdly Since God exacteth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisdom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581. n. 35. c sequ 3. How Repentance and the Precept of perfection Evangelical can stand together 582 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice The new and old Covenant as they are expressed in the words of Scripture 587 Chap. II. Of the nature and definition of Repentance and what parts of duty are signified by it in Scripture 596 Sect. 1. The notion of those words that in the Greek and Latin languages express Repentance with the definition and parts of it 596 2. Of Repentance in general or Conversion 599 3. Descriptions of Repentance taken from the H. Scriptures 604 The indispensable necessity of a good life represented in the words of Scripture 606 Chap. III. Of the distinction of Sins Mortal and Venial in what sence to be admitted and how the smallest Sins are to be repented of and expiated 610 Sect. 1. The inconvenience as to the conduct of Conscience in distinguishing Sins into Mortal and Venial in their own nature or kind ibid. 2. Of the difference of sins and their measures 611 3. That all sins are punishable if God please even with the pains of Hell 614 4. The former doctrine reduced to practice 623. n. 36. 5. To deny that there is a sort of sins that are Venial in their own nature how it is consistent with that doctrine which teaches the possibility of keeping the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with the righteousness of David Zechary and Elizabeth 625. n. 4. Some more particular measures of practice 626. n. 46. 6. What Repentance is necessary for the more Venial sins 630 Chap. IV. Of actual single sins and what Repentance is proper for them 635 Sect. 1. A Catalogue of sins that are severely threatned in Scripture of which men commonly believe not such hard things 635 2. Whether every single act of the fore-enumerated sins puts a man out of Gods favour 640 3. What Repentance is necessary for single acts of sin 646 Chap. V. Of Habitual Sins and manner of eradication or cure and their proper instruments of pardon 652 Sect. 1. The state of the Question ibid. 2. Every man is bound to Repent of his sin assoon as he hath committed it 654 3. A sinful habit hath in it proper evils and a proper guiltiness of its own besides all that which came directly from the single actions 658 Of sinful habits 1o. in their natural capacity 659 2o. in their moral capacity 661 First they add many degrees of aversation from God ibid. Secondly they imply not only a facility but a necessity of sinning 662 Thirdly they make our Repentance more difficult 663 Fourthly they make us swallow a great sin as easily as a smaller 664 Fifthly they keep us always out of Gods favour 665 3o. in their relative capacity in reference to our aversation from God 665 4. Sinful habits do require a distinct manner of Repentance and have no promise to be pardoned but by the introduction of the contrary 669. n. 32. Against the repentance of Clinicks ibid. 5. Consideration of seven objections against the doctrine in the foregoing Section 675 6. The former doctrine reduced to practice 687 1o. The Repentance of habitual sinners who return in their vigorous years ibid. 2o. The Repentance of sinners that return not till their old age 692 3o. How sinners are to be treated who Repent not till their death-bed 695 First what hopes are left to an ill-liv'd man that Repents in his death-bed and not before ibid. Secondly what advices can bring such a one most advantage 700 Chap. VI. Of Concupiscence and Original Sin whether or no and how far we are bound to repent of it 709 Sect. 1. The doctrine explained and proved out of the Scripture ibid. 2. Consideration of the objections against the former doctrine 720 3. How God punisheth the Fathers sin upon the children 725 4. Of the causes of the universal wickedness of mankind n. 66. 727 5. Of liberty of Election remaining after Adams fall n. 71. 730 6. The practical Question 733 7. Advices relating to the matter of Original sin 714 8. Rules and measures of deportment when a curse is feared to descend upon children for their Parents fault 738 Chap. VII A farther explication of the doctrine of Original Sin 747 Sect. 1. Of the fall of Adam and the effects of it upon him and us 747 2. Adams sin is in us no more than an imputed sin and how it is so 751 3. The doctrine of the ancient Father's was that free will remained in us after the fall 753 4. Adams sin is not imputed to us to our damnation 755 5. The doctrine of antiquity in this whole matter 757 6. An exposition of the Ninth Article of the Church of England which is of Original Sin shewing that the former doctrine contradicts not that Article 763 Chap. VIII Of sins of Infirmity and their remedy 770 Sect. 1. Of the state of Infirmity and its first remedy ibid. 2. An exposition and vindication of that Text Rom. 7.15 ad 20. which by the mistake of some is thought to mean the state of Infirmity in the regenerate 772 3. S. Augustines exposition of those words taken up after his retractation considered 775 4. The true meaning of that Text of the Apostle fully decreed and vindicated 777 1o. That S. Paul speaks not in his own person but of one unregenerate by a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 2o. that the state he describes is the state of a carnal man under the corruption of his nature ibid. 3o. from this state we are redeemed by Christ and his grace which is the second remedy 779 5. How far an unregenerate man may go in the ways of piety and religion 779 1o. An unregenerate man may be instructed in and convinced of his duty and approve the Law and confâ—ss the obligation 780 2o. he may in his will delight in goodness and desire it earnestly 781 3o. he may not only
primitùs sunt constituti The Lord did at first ordain and the Apostles did so order it and so Bishops at first had their Original constitution These and all the former who affirm Bishops to be successors of the Apostles and by consequence to have the same institution drive all to the same issue and are sufficient to make faith that it was the doctrine Primitive and Catholick that Episcopacy is a Divine institution which Christ Planted in the first founding of Christendom which the Holy Ghost Watered in his first descent on Pentecost and to which we are confident that God will give an increase by a neve-failing succession unless where God removes the Candlestick or which is all one takes away the star the Angel of light from it that it may be invelop'd in darkness usque ad consummationem saeculi aperturam tenebrarum The conclusion of all I subjoyn in the words of Venerable Bede before quoted Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti Bishops are distinct from Presbyters and Superiour to them by the law of God The second Basis of Episcopacy is Apostolical tradition We have seen what Christ did now we shall see what was done by his Apostles And since they knew their Masters mind so well we can never better confide in any argument to prove Divine institution of a derivative authority than the practice Apostolical Apostoli enim Discipuli veritatis existentes extra omne mendacium sunt non enim communicat mendacium veritati sicut non communicant tenebrae luci sed praesentia alterius excludit alterum saith S. Irenaeus SECT XIII In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches FIRST then the Apostles did presently after the Ascension fix an Apostle or a Bishop in the chair of Jerusalem For they knew that Jerusalem was shortly to be destroyed they themselves foretold of miseries and desolations to ensue Petrus Paulus praedicunt cladem Hierosolymitanam saith Lactantius l. 4. inst famines and wars and not a stone left upon another was the fate of that Rebellious City by Christs own prediction which themselves recorded in Scripture And to say they understood not what they writ is to make them Enthusiasts and neither good Doctors nor wise seers But it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the holy Spirit which was promised to lead them into all truth would instruct them in so concerning an issue of publick affairs as was so Great desolation and therefore they began betimes to establish that Church and to fix it upon its perpetual base Secondly The Church of Jerusalem was to be the president and platform for other Churches The word of God went forth into all the world beginning first at Jerusalem and therefore also it was more necessary a Bishop should be there plac'd betimes that other Churches might see their government from whence they receiv'd their doctrine that they might see from what stars their continual flux of light must stream Thirdly the Apostles were actually dispers'd by persecution and this to be sure they look'd for and therefore so implying the necessity of a Bishop to govern in their absence or decession any ways they ordained S. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem there he fixt his chair there he lived Bishop for 30 years and finished his course with glorious Martyrdom If this be proved we are in a fair way for practice Apostolical First Let us see all that is said of S. James in Scripture that may concern this affair Acts 15. We find S. James in the Synod at Jerusalem not disputing but giving final determination to that Great Question about Circumcision And when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said c. He first drave the question to an issue and told them what he believed concerning it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we trust it will go as well with us without circumcision as with our Forefathers who used it But S. James when he had summed up what had been said by S. Peter gave sentence and final determination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore I judge or give sentence So he The acts of Council which the Brethren or Presbyters did use were deliberative they disputed v. 7. S. Peter's act was declarative but S. James his was decisive which proves him clearly if by reasonableness of the thing and the successive practice of Christendom in imitation of this first Council Apostolical we may take our estimate that S. James was the President of this Synod which considering that he was none of the twelve as I proved formerly is unimaginable were it not for the advantage of the place it being held in Jerusalem where he was Hierosolymorum Episcopus as S. Clement calls him especially in the presence of S. Peter who was primus Apostolus and decked with many personal priviledges and prerogatives * Add to this that although the whole Council did consent to the sending of the Decretal Epistle and to send Judas and Silas yet because they were of the Presbytery and Colledge of Jerusalem S. James his Clergy they are said as by way of appropriation to come from S. James Gal. 2. v. 12. Upon which place S. Austin saith thus Cùm vidisset quosdam venisse à Jacobo i. e. à Judaeâ nam Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae Jacobus praefuit To this purpose that of Ignatius is very pertinent calling S. Stephen the Deacon of S. James and in his Epistle to Hero saying that he did Minister to S. James and the Presbyters of Jerusalem which if we expound according to the known discipline of the Church in Ignatius's time who was Suppar Apostolorum only not a contemporary Bishop here is plainly the eminency of an Episcopal chair and Jerusalem the seat of S. James and the Clergy his own of a Colledge of which he was the praepositus Ordinarius he was their Ordinary * The second evidence of Scripture is Acts 21. And when we were come to Jerusalem the Brethren received us gladly and the day following Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders were present Why unto James Why not rather unto the Presbytery or Colledge of Elders if James did not eminere were not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Praepositus or Bishop of them all Now that these conjectures are not vain and impertinent see it testified by Antiquity to which in matter of fact and Church-story he that will not give faith upon current testimonies and uncontradicted by Antiquity is a mad-man and may as well disbelieve every thing that he hath not seen himself and can no way prove that himself was Christned and to be sure after 1600 years there is no possibility to disprove a matter of fact that was never questioned or doubted of before and therefore can never obtain the faith of any man to his contradictory it being impossible to prove it Eusebius reports out of S. Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a clear evidence that this nullity viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Jerome Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aerius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemned and branded for heresie and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring than positive and Canonical Sanction But now proceed The Council held in Trullo complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence and made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Council And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to do them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are named before viz. Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Council was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop used by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordain Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism but no fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordain him and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a ruled case and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church which was set down in the third Council of Carthage Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui Vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have been the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himself ordain many and then I am sure there is a sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Council the Council of Antioch the Council of Chalcedon and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem If thou speak saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordained him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars add this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them and were causes in conjunction But unless they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
found out a remedy for those of old so he will also for the poor misled people of Ireland and will take away the evil minds or the opportunities of the Adversaries hindring the people from Instruction and make way that the Truths we have here taught may approach to their ears and sink into their hearts and make them wise unto Salvation Amen A DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY To the People of IRELAND PART I. The INTRODVCTION THE Questions of difference between Our Churches and the Church of Rome have been so often disputed and the evidences on both sides so often produc'd that to those who are strangers to the present constitution of affairs it may seem very unnecessary to say them over again and yet it will seem almost impossible to produce any new matter or if we could it will not be probable that what can be newly alledged can prevail more than all that which already hath been so often urged in these Questions But we are not deterr'd from doing our duty by any such considerations as knowing that the same Medicaments are with success applied to a returning or an abiding Ulcer and the Preachers of God's Word must for ever be ready to put the People in mind of such things which they already have heard and by the same Scriptures and the same Reasons endeavour to destroy their sin or prevent their danger and by the same word of God to exstirpate those errors which have had opportunity in the time of our late disorders to spring up and grow stronger not when the Keepers of the field slept but when they were wounded and their hands cut off and their mouths stopp'd lest they should continue or proceed to do the work of God thoroughly A little warm Sun and some indulgent showers of a softer Rain have made many weeds of erroneous Doctrine to take root greatly and to spread themselves widely and the Bigots of the Roman Church by their late importune boldness and indiscreet forwardness in making Proselytes have but too manifestly declar'd to all the World that if they were rerum potiti Masters of our affairs they would suffer nothing to grow but their own Colocynths and Gourds And although the Natural remedy for this were to take away that impunity upon the account of which alone they do encrease yet because we shall never be Authors of such Counsels but confidently rely upon God the Holy Scriptures right Reason and the most venerable and prime Antiquity which are the proper defensatives of truth for its support and maintenance yet we must not conceal from the People committed to our charges the great evils to which they are tempted by the Roman Emissaries that while the King and the Parliament take care to secure all the publick interests by instruments of their own we also may by the word of our proper Ministery endeavour to stop the progression of such errors which we know to be destructive of Christian Religion and consequently dangerous to the interest of Souls In this procedure although we shall say some things which have not been alwayes plac'd before their eyes and others we shall represent with a fittingness to their present necessities and all with Charity too and zeal for their souls yet if we were to say nothing but what hath been often said already we are still doing the work of God and repeating his voice and by the same remedies curing the same diseases and we only wait for the blessing of God prospering that importunity which is our duty according to the advice of Solomon In the Morning sow thy seed and in the Evening withhold not thy hand for thou knowest not whether shall prosper either this or that or whether they both shall be alike good CHAP. I. The Doctrine of the Roman Church in the Controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive SECT I. IT was the challenge of Saint Augustine to the Donatists who as the Church of Rome does at this day inclos'd the Catholick Church within their own circuits Ye say that Christ is Heir of no Lands but where Donatus is Co-heir Read this to us out of the Law and the Prophets out of the Psalms out of the Gospel it self or out of the Letters of the Apostles Read it thence and we believe it Plainly directing us to the Fountains of our Faith the Old and New Testament the words of Christ and the words of the Apostles For nothing else can be the Foundation of our Faith whatsoever came in after these foris est it belongs not unto Christ To these we also add not as Authors or Finishers but as Helpers of our Faith and Heirs of the Doctrine Apostolical the Sentiments and Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God in the Ages next after the Apostles Not that we think them or our selves bound to every private Opinion even of a Primitive Bishop and Martyr but that we all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the Faith entire and transmitted faithfully to the after-Ages the whole faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of doctrine and sound words which was at first delivered to the Saints and was defective in nothing that belong'd unto salvation and we believe that those Ages sent millions of Saints to the bosome of Christ and seal'd the true Faith with their lives and with their deaths and by both gave testimony unto Jesus and had from him the Testimony of his Spirit And this method of procedure we now chuse not only because to them that know well how to use it to the Sober and Moderate the Peaceable and the Wise it is the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory but also because the Church of Rome does with greatest noises pretend her Conformity to Antiquity Indeed the present Roman Doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard-of in the first and best Antiquity and with how ill success their Quotations are out of the Fathers of the first three Ages every inquiring Man may easily discern But the noises therefore which they make are from the Writings of the succeeding Ages where secular interest did more prevail and the Writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous sences fitted to their own times and questions full of proper Opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively Now although things being thus it will be impossible for them to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers that their Doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholick Doctrine of the Church because any number that is less than all does not prove a Catholick consent yet the clear sayings of one or two of these Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholicks as the other do deny was not then
place and Religion into vanity and our hope in God to a confidence in man and our fears of hell to be a meer scare-crow to rich and confident sinners and at last it was frugally employed by a great Pope to raise a portion for a Lady the Wife of Franceschet to Cibo Bastard Son of Pope Innocent the eighth and the merchandize it self became the stakes of Gamesters at Dice and Cards and men did vile actions that they might win Indulgences by Gaming making their way to Heaven easier Now although the Holy Fathers of the Church could not be suppos'd in direct terms to speak against this new Doctrine of Indulgences because in their dayes it was not yet they have said many things which do perfectly destroy this new Doctrine and these unchristian practises For besides that they teach repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a faith that intirely relies upon Christ's merits and satisfactions a hope wholly depending upon the plain promises of the Gospel a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience a labour of love a religion of justice and piety and moral vertues they do also expresly teach that pilgrimages to holy places and such like inventions which are now the earnings and price of Indulgences are not requir'd of us and are not the way of salvation as is to be seen in an Oration made by Saint Gregory Nyssene wholly against pilgrimages to Jerusalem in Saint Chrysostom Saint Augustine and Saint Bernard The sence of these Fathers is this in the words of Saint Augustine God said not Go to the East and seek righteousness sail to the West that you may receive indulgence But indulge thy brother and it shall be indulg'd to thee you have need to inquire for no other indulgence to thy sins if thou wilt retire into the closet of thy heart there thou shalt find it That is All our hopes of Indulgence is from GOD through JESVS CHRIST and is wholly to be obtain'd by faith in Christ and perseverance in good works and intire mortification of all our sins To conclude this particular Though the gains which the Church of Rome makes of Indulgences be a heap almost as great as the abuses themselves yet the greatest Patrons of this new Doctrine could never give any certainty or reasonable comfort to the Conscience of any person that could inquire into it They never durst determine whether they were Absolutions or Compensations whether they only take off the penances actually impos'd by the Confessor or potentially and all that which might have been impos'd whether all that may be paid in the Court of men or all that can or will be required by the Laws and severity of God Neither can they speak rationally to the Great Question Whether the Treasure of the Church consists of the Satisfactions of Christ only or of the Saints For if of Saints it will by all men be acknowledged to be a defeisible estate and being finite and limited will be spent sooner than the needs of the Church can be served and if therefore it be necessary to add the merits and satisfaction of Christ since they are an Ocean of infinity and can supply more than all our needs to what purpose is it to add the little minutes and droppings of the Saints They cannot tell whether they may be given if the Receiver do nothing or give nothing for them And though this last particular could better be resolv'd by the Court of Rome than by the Church of Rome yet all the Doctrines which built up the new Fabrick of Indulgences were so dangerous to determine so improbable so unreasonable or at best so uncertain and invidious that according to the advice of the Bishop of Modena the Council of Trent left all the Doctrines and all the cases of Conscience quite alone and slubber'd the whole matter both in the Question of Indulgences and Purgatory in general and recommendatory terms affirming that the power of giving Indulgence is in the Church and that the use is wholesome And that all hard and subtil Questions viz. concerning Purgatory which although if it be at all it is a fire yet is the fuel of Indulgences and maintains them wholly all that is suspected to be false and all that is uncertain and whatsoever is curious and superstitious scandalous or for filthy lucre be laid aside And in the mean time they tell us not what is and what is not Superstitious nor what is scandalous nor what they mean by the general term of Indulgence and they establish no Doctrine neither curious nor incurious nor durst they decree the very foundation of this whole matter The Churches Treasure Neither durst they meddle with it but left it as they found it and continued in the abuses and proceeded in the practice and set their Doctors as well as they can to defend all the new and curious and scandalous Questions and to uphold the gainful trade But however it be with them the Doctrine it self is prov'd to be a direct Innovation in the matter of Christian Religion and that was it which we have undertaken to demonstrate SECT IV. THE Doctrine of Purgatory is the Mother of Indulgences and the fear of that hath introduc'd these For the world happened to be abus'd like the Countrey-man in the Fable who being told he was likely to fall into a delirium in his feet was advis'd for remedy to take the juyce of Cotton He feared a disease that was not and look'd for a cure as ridiculous But if the Patent of Indulgences be not from Christ and his Apostles if upon this ground the Primitive Church never built the Superstructures of Rome must fall they can be no stronger than their Supporter Now then in order to the proving the Doctrine of Purgatory to be an Innovation 1. We consider That the Doctrines upon which it is pretended reasonable are all dubious and disputable at the very best Such are 1. Their distinction of sins Mortal and Venial in their own nature 2. That the taking away the guilt of sins does not suppose the taking away the obligation to punishment that is That when a mans sin is pardoned he may be punished without the guilt of that sin as justly as with it as if the guilt could be any thing else but an obligation to punishment for having sinned which is a Proposition of which no wise man can make sence but it is certain that it is expresly against the Word of God who promises upon our repentance so to take away our sins that he will remember them no more And so did Christ to all those to whom he gave pardon for he did not take our faults and guilt on him any other way but by curing our evil hearts and taking away the punishment And this was so perfectly believ'd by the Primitive Church that they alwayes made the penances and satisfaction to be undergone before they gave absolution and
as to agree with Scripture and reason and as may best glorifie God and that they require it I will not pretend to believe that those Doctors who first fram'd the Article did all of them mean as I mean I am not sure they did or that they did not but this I am sure that they fram'd the words with much caution and prudence and so as might abstain from grieving the contrary minds of differing men And I find that in the Harmony of confessions printed in Cambridge 1586 and allowed by publick Authority there is no other account given of the English confession in this Article but that every Person is born in sin and leadeth his life in sin and that no body is able truly to say his heart is clean That the most righteous person is but an unprofitable servant That the Law of God is perfect and requireth of us perfect and full obedience that we are able by no means to fulfill that Law in this worldly life that there is no mortal Creature which can be justified by his own deserts in God's sight Now this was taken out of the English Confession inserted in the General Apology written in the year 1562 in the very year the Articles were fram'd I therefore have reason to believe that the excellent men of our Church Bishops and Priests did with more Candor and Moderation opine in this Question and therefore when by the violence and noises of some parties they were forced to declare something they spake warily and so as might be expounded to that Doctrine which in the General Apology was their allowed sence However it is not unusual for Churches in matters of difficulty to frame their Articles so as to serve the ends of peace and yet not to endanger truth or to destroy liberty of improving truth or a further reformation And since there are so very many Questions and Opinions in this point either all the Dissenters must be allowed to reconcile the Article and their Opinion or must refuse her Communion which whosoever shall inforce is a great Schismatick and an Uncharitable Man This only is certain that to tye the Article and our Doctrine together is an excellent art of peace and a certain signification of obedience and yet is a security of truth and that just liberty of Understanding which because it is only God's subject is then sufficiently submitted to Men when we consent in the same form of words The Article is this Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk 28. THE following of Adam that is the doing as he did is actual sin and in no sence can it be Original sin for that is as vain as if the Pelagians had said the second is the first and it is as impossible that what we do should be Adam's sin as it is unreasonable to say that his should be really and formally our sin Imitation supposes a Copy and those are two termes of a Relation and cannot be coincident as like is not the same But then if we speak of Original sin as we have our share in it yet cannot our imitation of Adam be it possibly it may be an effect of it or a Consequent But therefore Adam's sin did not introduce a necessity of sinning upon us for if it did Original sin would be a fatal curse by which is brought to pass not only that we do but that we cannot choose but follow him and then the following of Adam would be the greatest part of Original sin expresly against the Article 29. But it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every Man The fault vitium Naturae so it is in the Latine Copyes not a sin properly Non talia sunt vitia quae jam peccata dicenda sunt but a disease of the Soul as blindness or crookedness that is it is an imperfection or state of deficiency from the end whither God did design us we cannot with this nature alone go to Heaven for it having been debauch'd by Adam and disrobed of all its extraordinaries and graces whereby it was or might have been made fit for Heaven it is returned to its own state which is perfect in its kind that is in order to all natural purposes but imperfect in order to supernatural whither it was design'd The case is this The eldest Son of Craesus the Lydian was born dumb and by the fault of his Nature was unfit to govern the Kingdom therefore his Father passing him by appointed the Crown to his younger Brother But he in a Battail seeing his Father in danger to be slain in Zeal to save his Fathers life strain'd the ligatures of his tongue till that broke which bound him by returning to his speech he returned to his title We are born thus imperfect unfit to raign with God for ever and can never return to a title to our inheritance till we by the grace of God be redintegrate and made perfect like Adam that is freed from this state of imperfection by supernatural aides and by the grace of God be born again Corruption This word is exegetical of the other and though it ought not to signifie the diminution of the powers of the soul not only because the powers of the soul are not corruptible but because if they were yet Adams sin could not do it since it is impossible that an act proper to a faculty should spoil it of which it is rather perfective and an act of the will can no more spoil the will than an act of understanding can lessen the understanding Yet this word Corruption may mean a spoiling or disrobing our Nature of all its extraordinary investitures that is supernatural gifts and graces a Comparative Corruption so as Moses's face when the light was taken from it or a Diamond which is more glorious by a reflex ray of the Sun when the light was taken off falls into darkness and yet loses nothing of its Nature But Corruption relates to the body not to the soul and in this Article may very properly and aptly be taken in the same sence as it is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. The body is sown in Corruption that is in all the effects of its mortality and this indeed is a part of Original sin or the effect of Adams sin it introduc'd Natural Corruption or the affections of mortality the solemnities of death for indeed this is the greatest parth of Original sin Fault and Corruption mean the Concupiscence and Mortality Of the Nature of every man This gives light to the other and makes it clear it cannot be in us properly a sin for sin is an affection of persons not of the whole Nature for an Universal cannot be the subject of circumstances and particular actions and personal proprieties as humane Nature cannot be said to be drunk or to commit adultery now because sin is an action or omission and it is made up of many particularities it cannot be
which if a Christian did fall after baptism the Church had nothing to do with him she could not absolve him 14. This opinion of theirs was a branch of the elder Heresie of Montanus which had abus'd Tertullian who fiercely declaims against the decree of Pope Zephyrinus because against the custom of his Decessors he admitted adulterers to repentance while at the same time he refus'd idolaters and murderers And this their severity did not seem to be put upon the account of a present necessity or their own zeal or for the avoiding scandal or their love of holiness but upon the nature of the thing it self and the sentences of Scripture An old man of whom Irenaeus makes mention said Non debemus superbi esse neque reprehendere veteres ne fortè post agnitionem Dei agentes aliquid quod non placet Deo remissionem non habeamus ultrà delictorum excludamur à regno ejus We must not be proud and reprove our Fathers lest after the knowledge of God we doing something that does not please God we may no more have remission of our sins but be excluded from his Kingdom To the same purpose is that Canon made by the Gallic Bishops against the false accusers of their brethren ut ad exitum ne communicent that they should not be admitted to the Communion or peace of the Church no not at their death And Pacianus Bishop of Barcinona gives a severe account of the doctrine of the Spanish Churches even in his time and of their refusing to admit idolaters murderers and adulterers to repentance Other sins may be cured by the exercise of good works But these three kill like the breath of a Basilisk and are to be feared like a deadly arrow They that were guilty of such crimes did despair What have I done to you was it not in your power to have let it alone Did no man admonish you Did none foretel the event Was the Church silent Did the Gospels say nothing Did the Apostles threaten nothing Did the Priest intreat nothing of you why do you seek for late comforts Then you might have sought for them when they were to be had But they that pronounce such men happy do but abuse you 15. This opinion and the consequent practice had its fate in several places to live longer or die sooner And in Africa the decree of Zephyrinus for the admission of penitent adulterers was not admitted even by the Orthodox and Catholicks but they dissented placidly and modestly and governed their own Churches by the old severity For there was then no thought of any necessity that other Churches should obey the sanctions of the Pope or the decrees of Rome but they retain'd the old Discipline But yet the piety and the reasonableness of the decree of Zephyrinus prevail'd by little and little and adulterers were admitted but the severity stuck longer upon idolaters or apostates for they were not to be admitted to the peace of the Church although they should afterwards suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ and for this they pretended the words of S. Paul Non possunt admitti secundum Apostolum as S. Cyprian expresly affirms and the same is the sentence of the first Canon of the Council of Eliberis 16. When they began to remit of this rigor which they did in or about S. Cyprians time they did admit these great criminals to repentance Once but no more as appears in Tertullian the Council of Eliberis the Synod at Syde in Pamphylia against the Messalians S. Ambrose S. Austin and Macedonius which makes it suspicious that the words of Origen are interpolated saying In gravioribus criminibus semel tantùm vel rarò poenitentiae conceditur locus But once or but seldom so the words are now but the practice of that age was not so remiss for they gave once and no more as appears in the foregoing Authors and in the eleventh Canon of the third Council of Toledo For as S. Clemens of Alexandria affirms Apparet sed non est poenitentia saepe petere de iis quae saepe peccantur It is but a seeming repentance that falls often after a frequent return 17. But this gentleness for it was the greatest they then had they ministred to such only as desir'd it in their health and in the days in which they could live the lives of penitents and make amends for their folly For if men had liv'd wickedly and on their death-bed desir'd to be admitted to repentance and pardon they refus'd them utterly as appears in that excellent Epistle of S. Cyprian to Antonianus Prohibendos omnino censuimus à specommunionis pacis si in infirmitate atque periculo coeperint deprecari at no hand are those to be admitted to Church communion who repent only in their danger and weakness because not repentance of their fault but the hasty warning of instant or approaching death compell'd them neither is he worthy in death to receive the comfort who did not think he was to die And consequently to this severity in his Sermon de lapsis he advises that every man should confess his sin while his confession can be admitted while his satisfaction may be acceptable and his pardon ratified by God The same was decreed by the Fathers in the Synod of Arles 18. This was severe if we judge of it by the manners and propositions of the present age But iniquity did so abound and was so far from being cured by this severe discipline that it made this discipline to be intolerable and useless And therefore even from this also they did quickly retire For in the time of Innocentius and S. Austin they began not only to impose penances on dying penitents but even after a wicked life to reconcile them They then first began to do it but as it usually happens in first attempts and insolent actions they were fearful and knew not the event and would warrant nothing To hinder them that are in peril of death from the use of the last remedy is hard and impious but to promise any thing in so late a cure is temerarious So Salvian and S. Chrysostome to Theodorus would not have such persons despaired so neither nourish'd up by hope only it is better nihil inexpertum relinquere quà m morientem nolle curare to try every way rather than that the dying penitent should fail for want of help But Isidore said plainly He who living wickedly repents in the time of his death as his damnation is uncertain so his pardon is doubtful 19. This was the most dangerous indulgence and easiness of doctrine that had as yet entred into the Church but now it was tumbling and therefore could not stop here but presently down went all severity All sinners and at all times and as often as they would might be admitted to repentance and pardon whether they could or could not perform the
no such thing as is pretended or if they did it is but little considerable because they did not believe themselves their practice was the greatest evidence in the world against the pretence of their words But I am much eased of a long disquisition in this particular for I love not to prove a Question by Arguments whose Authority is in itself as fallible and by circumstances made as uncertain as the Question by the saying of Aeneas Sylvius that before the Nicene Council every man lived to himself and small respect was had to the Church of Rome which practice could not well consist with the Doctrine of their Bishops Infallibility and by consequence supreme judgment and last resolution in matters of Faith but especially by the insinuation and consequent acknowledgment of Bellarmine that for 1000 years together the Fathers knew not of the Doctrine of the Pope's Infallibility for Nilus Gerson Almain the Divines of Paris Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian VI. persons who lived 1400 years after Christ affirm that Infallibility is not seated in the Pope's person that he may erre and sometimes actually hath which is a clear demonstration that the Church knew no such Doctrine as this there had been no Decree nor Tradition nor general opinion of the Fathers or of any Age before them and therefore this Opinion which Bellarmine would fain blast if he could yet in his Conclusion he says it is not propriè haeretica A device and an expression of his own without sense or precedent But if the Fathers had spoken of it and believed it why may not a disagreeing person as well reject their Authority when it is in behalf of Rome as they of Rome without scruple cast them off when they speak against it For Bellarmine being pressed with the Authority of Nilus Bishop of Thessalonica and other Fathers says that the Pope acknowledges no Fathers but they are all his children and therefore they cannot depose against him and if that be true why shall we take their Testimonies for him for if Sons depose in their Father's behalf it is twenty to one but the adverse party will be cast and therefore at the best it is but suspectum Testimonium But indeed this discourse signifies nothing but a perpetuall uncertainty in such Topicks and that where a violent prejudice or a concerning interest is engaged men by not regarding what any man says proclaim to all the world that nothing is certain but Divine Authority 13. But I will not take advantage of what Bellarmine says nor what Stapleton or any one of them all say for that will be but to press upon personal perswasions or to urge a general Question with a particular defaillance and the Question is never the nearer to an end for if Bellarmine says any thing that is not to another man's purpose or perswasion that man will be tried by his own Argument not by another's And so would every man doe that loves his liberty as all wise men do and therefore retain it by open violence or private evasions But to return 14. An Authority from Irenaeus in this Question and on behalf of the Pope's Infallibility or the Authority of the See of Rome or of the necessity of communicating with them is very fallible for besides that there are almost a dozen answers to the words of the Allegation as is to be seen in those that trouble themselves in this Question with the Allegation and answering such Authorities yet if they should make for the affirmative of this Question it is protestatio contra factum For Irenaeus had no such great opinion of Pope Victor's Infallibility that he believed things in the same degree of necessity that the Pope did for therefore he chides him for Excommunicating the Asian Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all at a blow in the Question concerning Easter-day and in a Question of Faith he expresly disagreed from the doctrine of Rome for Irenaeus was of the Millenary opinion and believed it to be a Tradition Apostolicall Now if the Church of Rome was of that opinion then why is she not now where is the succession of her Doctrine But if she was not of that opinion then and Irenaeus was where was his belief of that Churche's Infallibility The same I urge concerning S. Cyprian who was the head of a Sect in opposition to the Church of Rome in the Question of Rebaptization and he and the abettors Firmilian and the other Bishops of Cappadocia and the voicinage spoke harsh words of Steven and such as become them not to speak to an infallible Doctor and the supreme Head of the Church I will urge none of them to the disadvantage of that See but onely note the Satyrs of Firmilian against him because it is of good use to shew that it is possible for them in their ill carriage to blast the reputation and efficacy of a great Authority For he says that that Church did pretend the Authority of the Apostles cùm in multis Sacramentis Divinae rei à principio discrepet ab Ecclesia Hierosolymitana defamet Petrum Paulum tanquam authores And a little after Justè dedignor says he apertam manifestam stultitiam Stephani per quam veritas Christianae petrae aboletur Which words say plainly that for all the goodly pretence of Apostolicall Authority the Church of Rome did then in many things of Religion disagree from Divine Institution and from the Church of Jerusalem which they had as great esteem of for Religion sake as of Rome for its Principality and that still in pretending to S. Peter and S. Paul they dishonoured those blessed Apostles and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication Which words I confess pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of Infallibility and although they were spoken by an angry person yet they declare that in Africa they were not then perswaded as now they are at Rome Nam nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit vendicavit sibi aliquid insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit ut diceret se primatum tenere That was their belief then and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is all the world is witness And now I shall not need to note concerning S. Hierome that he gave a complement to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius Qui tecum non colligit spargit For it might be true enough of Damasus who was a good Bishop and a right believer but if Liberius's name had been put in stead of Damasus the case had been altered with the name for S. Hierome did believe and write it so that Liberius had subscribed to Arianism And if either he or any of the rest had believ'd the Pope could not be a Heretick nor his Faith fail but be so good and of so competent Authority as to be a Rule to Christendom why did they not appeal to
the Pope in the Arian Controversie why was the Bishop of Rome made a party and a concurrent as other good Bishops were and not a Judge and an Arbitrator in the Question why did the Fathers prescribe so many Rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of Heresy why were the Emperours at so much charge and the Church at so much trouble as to call and convene Councils respectively to dispute so frequently to write so sedulously to observe all advantages against their Adversaries and for the truth and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the Question in his Chair Certainly no way could have been so expedite none so concluding and peremptory none could have convinc'd so certainly none could have triumphed so openly over all Discrepants as this if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the Judge of Controversies And therefore I will not trouble this Discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to this purpose of the Pope for they would but make books swell and the Question endless I shall onely to this purpose observe that the old Writers were so far from believing the Infallibility of the Roman Church or Bishop that many Bishops and many Churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman Communion particularly Saint Austin who with 217 Bishops and their Successors for 100 years together stood separate from that Church if we may believe their own Records So did Ignatius of Constantinople S. Chrysostome S. Cyprian Firmilian those Bishops of Asia that separated in the Question of Easter and those of Africa in the Question of Rebaptization But besides this most of them had Opinions which the Church of Rome disavows now and therefore did so then or else she hath innovated in her Doctrine which though it be most true and notorious I am sure she will never confess But no excuse can be made for S. Austin's disagreeing and contesting in the Question of Appeals to Rome the necessity of Communicating Infants the absolute damnation of Infants to the pains of Hell if they die before Baptism and divers other particulars It was a famous act of the Bishops of Liguria and Istria who seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth Synod in disparagement of the famous Council of Chalcedon which for their own interests they did not like of renounced subjection to his Patriarchate and erected a Patriarch at Aquileia who was afterwards translated to Venice where his name remains to this day It is also notorious that most of the Fathers were of opinion that the Souls of the faithfull did not enjoy the Beatifick Vision before Doomsday Whether Rome was then of that opinion or no I know not I am sure now they are not witness the Councils of Florence and Trent but of this I shall give a more full account afterwards But if to all this which is already noted we adde that great variety of opinions amongst the Fathers and Councils in assignation of the Canon they not consulting with the Bishop of Rome nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his Rule in enumeration of the Books of Scripture I think no more need to be said as to this particular 15. Eighthly But now if after all this there be some Popes which were notorious Hereticks and Preachers of false Doctrine some that made impious Decrees both in Faith and manners some that have determined Questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity some with apparent sophistry and many to serve their own ends most openly I suppose then the Infallibility will disband and we may doe to him as to other good Bishops believe him when there is cause but if there be none then to use our Consciences Non enim salvat Christianum quòd Pontifex constanter affirmat praeceptum suum esse justum sed oportet illud examinari se juxta regulam superiùs datum dirigere I would not instance and repeat the errours of dead Bishops if the extreme boldness of the pretence did not make it necessary But if we may believe Tertullian Pope Zepherinus approved the Prophecies of Montanus and upon that approbation granted peace to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia till Praxeas perswaded him to revoke his act But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no some such thing there was for certain Pope Vigilius denied two Natures in Christ and in his Epistle to Theodora the Empress anathematiz'd all them that said he had two natures in one person S. Gregory himself permitted Priests to give Confirmation which is all one as if he should permit Deacons to consecrate they being by Divine Ordinance annext to the higher Orders and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may erre in definiendis dogmatibus fidei And that we may not fear we shall want instances we may to secure it take their own confession Nam multae sunt decretales haereticae says Occham as he is cited by Almain firmiter hoc credo says he for his own particular sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum quoniam sunt determinatae So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be Hereticks as that it is dangerous to say so and therefore there are so few that teach it All the Patriarchs and the Bishop of Rome himself subscribed to Arianism as Baronius confesses and Gratian affirms that Pope Anastasius II. was strucken of God for communicating with the Heretick Photinus I know it will be made light of that Gregory the seventh saith the very Exorcists of the Roman Church are superiour to Princes But what shall we think of that Decretall of Gregory the third who wrote to Boniface his Legate in Germany quòd illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidâ debitum reddere noluerunt aliis poterant nubere Was this a doctrine fit for the Head of the Church an infallible Doctor It was plainly if any thing ever was doctrina Daemoniorum and is noted for such by Gratian Caus. 32.4.7 can quod proposuisti Where the Gloss also intimates that the same privilege was granted to the English-men by Gregory quia novi erant in fide And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better for not to instance in that learned discourse in the Canon-Law de majoritate obedientia where the Pope's Supremacy over Kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis and the Pope is the Sun and the Emperour is the Moon for that was the fancy of one Pope perhaps though made authentick and doctrinall by him it was if it be possible more ridiculous that Pope Innocent the third urges that the Mosaicall Law was still to be observed and that upon this Argument Sanè saith he cùm Deuteronontium Secunda lex interpretetur ex vi vocabuli comprobatur ut quod
ancient then falshood that God would not for so many Ages forsake his Church and leave her in an errour that whatsoever is new is not onely suspicious but false which are suppositions pious and plausible enough And if the Church of Rome had communicated Infants so long as she hath prayed to Saints or baptized Infants the communicating would have been believed with as much confidence as the other Articles are and the dissentients with as much impatience rejected But this consideration is to be enlarged upon all those particulars which as they are apt to abuse the persons of the men and amuse their understandings so they are instruments of their excuse and by making their errours to be invincible and their Opinions though false yet not criminall make it also to be an effect of reason and charity to permit the men a liberty of their Conscience and let them answer to God for themselves and their own Opinions Such as are the beauty and splendour of their Church their pompous Service the stateliness and solennity of the Hierarchy their name of Catholick which they suppose their own due and to concern no other Sect of Christians the antiquity of many of their Doctrines the continuall Succession of their Bishops their immediate derivation from the Apostles their Title to succeed S. Peter the supposall and pretence of his personal prerogatives the advantages which the conjunction of the Imperial Seat with their Episcopal hath brought to that See the flattering expressions of minor Bishops which by being old Records have obtained credibility the multitude and variety of people which are of their perswasion apparent consent with Antiquity in many Ceremonials which other Churches have rejected and a pretended and sometimes an apparent consent with some elder Ages in many matters Doctrinal the advantage which is derived to them by entertaining some personal Opinions of the Fathers which they with infinite clamours see to be cried up to be a Doctrine of the Church of that time the great consent of one part with another in that which most of them affirm to be de fide the great differences which are commenced amongst their Adversaries abusing the liberty of Prophesying unto a very great licentiousness their happiness of being instruments in converting divers Nations the advantages of Monarchicall Government the benefit of which as well as the inconveniences which though they feel they consider not they daily do enjoy the piety and the austerity of their Religious Orders of men and women the single life of their Priests and Bishops the riches of their Church the severity of their Fasts and their exteriour observances the great reputation of their first Bishops for Faith and sanctity the known holiness of some of those persons whose Institutes the Religious persons pretend to imitate their Miracles false or true substantial or imaginary the casualties and accidents that have happened to their Adversaries which being chances of humanity are attributed to several causes according as the fancies of men and their interests are pleased or satisfied the temporal felicity of their Professors the oblique arts and indirect proceedings of some of those who departed from them and amongsâ— many other things the names of Heretick and Schismatick which they with infinite pertinacy fasten upon all that disagree from them These things and divers others may very easily perswade persons of much reason and more piety to retain that which they know to have been the Religion of their Fore fathers which had actual possession and seisure of mens understandings before the opposite professions had a name and so much the rather because Religion hath more advantages upon the fancy and affections then it hath upon Philosophie and severe discourses and therefore is the more easily perswaded upon such grounds as these which are more apt to amuse then to satisfie the understanding 3. Secondly If we consider the Doctrines themselves we shall find them to be superstructures ill built and worse managed but yet they keep the foundation they build upon God in Jesus Christ they profess the Apostles Creed they retain Faith and repentance as the supporters of all our hopes of Heaven and believe many more Truths then can be proved to be of simple and original necessity to Salvation And therefore all the wisest personages of the adverse party allowed to them possibility of salvation whilst their errours are not faults of their will but weaknesses and deceptions of the understanding So that there is nothing in the foundation of Faith that can reasonably hinder them to be permitted The foundation of Faith stands secure enough for all their vain and unhandsome superstructures But then on the other side if we take account of their Doctrines as they relate to good life or are consistent or inconsistent with civil Government we shall have other considerations 4. Thirdly For I consider that many of their Doctrines do accidentally teach or lead to ill life and it will appear to any man that considers the result of these Propositions Attrition which is a low and imperfect degree of sorrow for sin or as others say a sorrow for sin commenced upon any reason of a religious hope or fear or desire or any thing else is a sufficient disposition for a man in the Sacrament of Penance to receive absolution and be justified before God by taking away the guilt of all his sins and the obligation to eternall pains So that already the fear of Hell is quite removed upon conditions so easie that many men take more pains to get a groat then by this Doctrine we are obliged to for the curing and acquitting all the greatest sins of a whole life of the most vicious person in the world And but that they affright their people with a fear of Purgatory or with the severity of Penances in case they will not venture for Purgatory for by their Doctrine they may chuse or refuse either there would be nothing in their Doctrine or Discipline to impede and slacken their proclivity to sin But then they have as easie a cure for that too with a little more charge sometimes but most commonly with less trouble For there are so many Confraternities so many priviledged Churches Altars Monasteries Coemeteries Offices Festivals and so free a concession of Indulgences appendant to all these and a thousand fine devices to take away the fear of Purgatory to commute or expiate Penances that in no Sect of men do they with more ease and cheapness reconcile a wicked life with the hopes of Heaven then in the Roman Communion 5. And indeed if men would consider things upon their true grounds the Church of Rome should be more reproved upon Doctrines that infer ill life then upon such as are contrariant to Faith For false superstructures do not always destroy Faith but many of the Doctrines they teach if they were prosecuted to the utmost issue would destroy good life And therefore my quarrell with the Church of Rome is greater
is most plentiful Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio dicit Petro c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Cùm hoc itaque Divinâ lege fundatum sit c. Our Lord did institute in the Gospel the honour of a Bishop Hence comes the Ordination of Bishops and the Church is built upon them and every action of the Church is to be governed by them and this is founded upon a Divine law Meminisse autem Diaconi debent quoniam Apostolos i. e. Episcopos praepositos Dominus elegit Our Lord hath chosen Apostles that is Bishops and Church-governours And a little after Quòd si nos aliquid audere contra Deum possumus qui Episcopos facit possunt contra nos audere Diaconi à quibus fiunt We must not attempt any thing against God who hath instituted Bishops The same Father in his Epistle to Magnus disputes against Novatianus his being a Bishop Novatianus in Ecclesiâ non est nec Episcopus computari potest qui Evangelicâ Apostolicâ traditione contemptâ nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est If there was both an Evangelical and an Apostolick tradition for the successive ordination of Bishops by other Bishops as S. Cyprian affirms there is by saying Novatianus contemned it then certainly the same Evangelical power did institute that calling for the modus of whose election it took such particular order S. Ignatius long before him speaking concerning his absent friend Sotion the Deacon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He wishes for the good mans company because by the grace of God and according to the law of Jesus Christ he was obedient to the Bishop and his Clergie And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is home enough Ye ought to obey your Bishop and to contradict him in nothing It is a fearful thing to contradict him For whosoever does so does not mock a visible man but the invisible undeceivable God For this contumely relates not to man but to God So S. Ignatius which could not be true were it a humane constitution and no Divine ordinance But more full are those words of his in his Epistle to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that obeys the Bishop and Clergy obeys Christ who did constitute and ordain them This is plain and dogmatical I would be loth to have two men so famous so Ancient and so resolute speak half so much against us But it is a general resolve and no private opinion For S. Austin is confident in the case with a Nemo ignorat Episcopos Salvatorem Ecclesiis instituisse Ipse enim priusquam in coelos ascenderet imponens manum Apostolis ordinavit eos Episcopos No man is so ignorant but he knows that our blessed Saviour appointed Bishops over Churches for before his ascension into Heaven he ordained the Apostles to be Bishops But long before him Hegesippus going to Rome and by the way calling in at Corinth and divers other Churches discoursed with their several Bishops and found them Catholick and Holy and then staid at Rome three successions of Bishops Anicetus Soter and Eleutherius Sed in omnibus istis ordinationibus vel in caeteris quas per reliquas urbes videram ita omnia habebantur sicut lex antiquitùs tradidit Prophetae indicaverunt Et Dominus Statuit All things in these ordinations or successions were as our Lord had appointed All things therefore both of doctrine and discipline and therefore the ordinations themselves too Further yet and it is worth observing there was never any Bishop of Rome from S. Peter to S. Sylvester that ever writ a decretal Epistle now extant and transmitted to us but either professedly or accidentally he said or intimated that the order of Bishops did come from God S. Irenaeus speaking of Bishops successors to the Apostles saith that with their order of Bishoprick they have received charisma veritatis certum a true and certain or indeleble character secundùm placitum Patris according to the will of God the Father And this also is the doctrine of S. Ambrose Ideò quanquam melior Apostolus aliquando tamen eget Prophetis quia ab uno Deo Patre sunt omnia singulos Episcopos singulis Ecclesiis praeesse decrevit God from whom all good things do come did decree that every Church should be governed by a Bishop And again Honor igitur Fratres sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares c. And a little after Quid jam de plebeiâ dixerim multitudine cui non solùm praeferri à Domino meruit sed ut eam quoque jure tueatur patrio praeceptis imperatum est Evangelicis The honour and sublimity of the Bishop is an incomparable preheminence and is by God set over the people and it is commanded by the precept of the holy Gospel that he should guide them by a Fathers right And in the close of his discourse Sic certè à Domino ad B. Petrum dicitur Petre amas me repetitum est à Domino tertiò Pasce oves meas Quas oves quem gregem non solùm tunc B. suscepit Petrus sed cum illo nos suscepimus omnes Our blessed Lord committed his sheep to S. Peter to be fed and in him we who have pastoral or Episcopal authority have received the same authority and commission Thus also divers of the Fathers speaking of the ordination of S. Timothy to be Bishop and of S. Paul's intimation that it was by Prophecy affirm it to be done by order of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostome he was ordained by Prophecy that is by the holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou wert not made Bishop by humane constitution 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Oecumenius By Divine revelation saith Theodoret. By the command of the Holy Ghost so Theophylact and indeed so S. Paul to the assembly of Elders and Bishops met at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and to be sure S. Timothy was amongst them and he was a Bishop and so were divers others there present therefore the order it self is a ray streaming from the Divine beauty since a single person was made Bishop by revelation I might multiply authorities in this particular which are very frequent and confident for the Divine institution of Episcopacy in Origen in the Council of Carthage recorded by S. Cyprian in the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis in the Councils of Aquisgrane and Toledo and many more The summe is that which was taught by S. Sextus Apostolorum dispositione ordinante Domino Episcopi
Acta in the Scripture therefore by Gods Holy Spirit and the end he also specifies viz. for the honour of that sacred order non propter legis necessitatem not that there is any necessity of law that Confirmation should be administred by the Bishop Not that a Priest may do it but that as S. Hierome himself there argues the Holy Ghost being already given in baptism if it happens that Bishops may not be had for he puts the case concerning persons in bondage and places remote and destitute of Bishops then in that case there is not the absolute necessity of a Law that Confirmation should be had at all A man does not perish if he have it not for that this thing was reserved to a Bishops peculiar ministration was indeed an honour to the function but it was not for the necessity of a Law tying people in all cases actually to acquire it So that this non necessarium is not to be referred to the Bishops ministration as if it were not necessary for him to do it when it is to be done nor that a Priest may do it if a Bishop may not be had but this non-necessity is to be referred to Confirmation it self so that if a Bishop cannot be had Confirmation though with much loss yet with no danger may be omitted This is the summe of S. Hieroms discourse this reconciles him to himself this makes him speak conformably to his first assertions and consequently to his arguments and to be sure no exposition can make these words to intend that this reservation of the power of Confirmation to Bishops is not done by the spirit of God and then let the sence of the words be what they will they can do no hurt to the cause and as easily may we escape from those words of his to Rusticus Bishop of Narbona Sed quia scriptum est Presbyteri duplici honore honorentur praedicare eos decet utile est benedicere congruum confirmare c. It is quoted by Gratian dist 95. can ecce ego But the gloss upon the place expounds him thus i. e. in fide the Presbyters may preach they may confirm their Auditors not by consignation of Chrism but by confirmation of faith and for this quotes a parallel place for the use of the word Confirmare by authority of S. Gregory who sent Zachary his legate into Germany from the See of Rome Vt Orthodoxos Episcopos Presbyteros vel quoscunque reperir◠potuisset in verbo exhortationis perfectos ampliùs confirmaret Certainly S. Gregory did not intend that his legate Zachary should confirm Bishops and Priests in any other sence but this of S. Hierom's in the present to wit in faith and doctrine not in rite and mystery and neither could S. Hierome himself intend that Presbyters should do it at all but in this sence of S. Gregory for else he becomes an Antistrephon and his own opposite * Yea but there is a worse matter than this S. Ambrose tells of the Egyptian Priests that they in the absence of the Bishop do confirm Denique apud Egyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus But 1. The passage is suspicious for it interrupts a discourse of S. Ambrose's concerning the Primitive Order of election to the Bishoprick and is no way pertinent to the discourse but is incircled with a story of a far different consequence which is not easily thought to have been done by any considering and intelligent Author 2. But suppose the clause be not surreptitious but natural to the discourse and born with it yet it is matter of fact not of right for S. Ambrose neither approves nor disproves it and so it must go for a singular act against the Catholick practice and Laws of Christendom 3. If the whole clause be not surreptitious yet the word Consignant is for S. Austin who hath the same discourse the same thing viz. of the dignity of Presbyters tells this story of the Act and honour of Presbyters in Alexandria and all Egppt almost in the other words of his Master S. Ambrose but he tells it thus Nam in Alexandriâ per totum Egyptum si desit Episcopus Consecrat Presbyter So that it should not be consignat but consecrat for no story tells of any confirmations done in Egypt by Presbyters but of consecrating the Eucharist in cases of Episcopal absence or commission I shall give account in the Question of jurisdiction that that was indeed permitted in Egypt some other places but Confirmation never that we can find elsewhere and this is too improbable to bear weight against evidence and practice Apostolical and four Councils and sixteen ancient Catholick Fathers testifying that it was a practice and a Law of Christendom that Bishops only should confirm and not Priests so that if there be no other scruple this Question is quickly at an end ** But S. Gregory is also pretended in objection for he gave dispensation to the Priests of Sardinia ut baptizatos Vnguant to aneal baptized people Now anointing the forehead of the baptized person was one of the solemnities of Confirmation so that this indulgence does arise to a power of Confirming for Vnctio and Chrismatio in the first Arausican Council and since that time Sacramentum Chrismatis hath been the usual word for Confirmation But this will not much trouble the business Because it is evident that he means it not of Confirmation but of the Chrisme in those times by the rites of the Church us'd in baptism For in his ninth Epistle he forbids Priests to anoint baptized people now here is precept against precept therefore it must be understood of several anointings and so S. Gregory expounds himself in this ninth Epistle Presbyteri baptizatos infantes signare bis infronte Chrismate non praesumant Presbyters may not anoint baptized people twice once they might now that this permission of anointing was that which was a ceremony of baptism not an act of confirmation we shall see by comparing it with other Canons In the collection of the Oriental Canons by Martinus Bracarensis It is decreed thus Presbyter praesente Episcopo non Signet infantes nisi forte ab Episcopo fuerit illi praeceptum A Priest must not sign infants without leave of the Bishop if he be present Must not sign them that is with Chrisme in their foreheads and that in baptism for the circumstant Canons do expresly explicate and determine it for they are concerning the rites of baptism and this in the midst of them And by the way this may answer S. Ambrose his Presbyteri consignant absente Episcopo in case it be so to be read for here we see a consignation permitted to the Presbyters in the Eastern Churches to be used in baptism in the absence of the Bishop and this an act of indulgence and favour and therefore extraordinary and of use to S. Ambrose his purpose of advancing the Presbyters
mislikes for all such things are wicked and in enmity with God * But it seems Saint Ignatius was mightily in love with this precept for he gives it to almost all the Churches he writes to We have already reckoned the Trallians and the Magnesians But the same he gives to the Priests of Tarsus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye Presbyters be subject to your Bishop The same to the Philadelphians Sine Episcopo nihil facite Do nothing without your Bishop But this is better explicated in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Sine Episcopo nemo quicquam faciat eorum quae ad Ecclesiam spectant No man may do any thing without the Bishop viz. of those things which belong to the Church So that this saying expounds all the rest for this universal obedience is to be understood according to the sence of the Church viz. to be in all things of Ecclesiastical cognizance all Church-affairs And therefore he gives a charge to S. Polycarp their Bishop that he also look to it that nothing be done without hiâ— leave Nihil sine tuo Arbitrio agatur nec item tu quicquam praeter Dei facies voluntatem As thou must do nothing against Gods will so let nothing in the Church be done without thine By the way observe he says not that as the Presbytery must do nothing without the Bishop so the Bishop nothing without them But so the Bishop nothing without God But so it is Nothing must be done without the Bishop And therefore although he incourages them that can to remain in Virginity yet this if it be either done with pride or without the Bishop it is spoiled For Si gloriatus fuerit periit si id ipsum statuatur sine Episcopo corruptum est His last dictate in this Epistle to S. Polycarp is with an Episcopo attendite sicut Deus vobis The way to have God to take care of us is to observe our Bishop Hinc vos decet accedere Sententiae Episcopi qui secundum Deum vos pascit quemadmodum facitis edocti à spiritu You must therefore câ—â—form to the sentence of the Bishop as indeed ye do already being taught so to do by Gods holy Spirit There needs no more to be said in this cause if the authority of so great a man will bear so great a burden What the man was I said before what these Epistles are and of what authority let it rest upon Vedelius a man who is no ways to be suspected as a party for Episcopacy or rather upon the credit of Eusebius S. Hierome and Ruffinus who reckon the first seven out of which I have taken these excerpta for natural and genuine And now I will make this use of it Those men that call for reduction of Episcopacy to the Primitive state should do well to stand close to their principles and count that the best Episcopacy which is first and then consider but what S. Ignatius hath told us for direction in this affair and see what is gotten in the bargain For my part since they that call for such a reduction hope to gain by it and then would most certainly have abidden by it I think it not reasonable to abate any thing of Ignatius his height but expect such subordination and conformity to the Bishop as he then knew to be a law of Christianity But let this be remembred all along in the specification of the parts of their Jurisdiction But as yet I am in the general demonstration of obedience The Council of Laodicea having specified some particular instances of subordination and dependance to the Bishop summs them up thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So likewise the Presbyters let them do nothing without the precept and counsel of the Bishop so is the translation of Isidore ad verbum This Council is ancient enough for it was before the first Nicene So also was that of Arles commanding the same thing exactly * Vt Presbyteri sine conscientiâ Episcoporum nihil faciant Sed nec Presbyteris civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid imperare vel sine authoritate literarum ejus in unaquaque parochiâ aliquid agere says the thirteenth Canon of the Ancyran Council according to the Latin of Isidore The same thing is in the first Council of Toledo the very same words for which I cited the first Council of Arles viz. That Presbyters do nothing without the knowledge or permission of the Bishop Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo quasi animae parentem suscipe It is the counsel of S. Hierome Be subject to thy Bishop and receive him as the Father of thy soul. I shall not need to derive hither any more particular instances of the duty and obedience owing from the Laity to the Bishop For this account will certainly be admitted by all considering men God hath intrusted the souls of the Laity to the care of the Ecclesiastical orders they therefore are to submit to the government of the Clergie in matters Spiritual with which they are intrusted For either there is no Government at all or the Laity must govern the Church or else the Clergie must To say there is no Government is to leave the Church in worse condition than a tyranny To say that the Laity should govern the Church when all Ecclesiastical Ministeries are committed to the Clergy is to say Scripture means not what it says for it is to say that the Clergy must be Praepositi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Praelati and yet the prelation and presidency and rule is in them who are not ever by Gods spirit called Presidents or Prelates and that it is not in them who are so called * In the mean time if the Laity in matters Spiritual are inferiour to the Clergy and must in things pertaining to the Soul be ruled by them with whom their Souls are intrusted then also much rather they must obey those of the Clergy to whom all the other Clergy themselves are bound to be obedient Now since by the frequent precept of so many Councils and Fathers the Deacons and Presbyters must submit in all things to the Bishop much more must the Laity and since the Bishop must rule in chief and the Presbyters at the most can but rule in conjunction and assistance but ever in subordination to the Bishop the Laity must obey de integro For that is to keep them in that state in which God hath placed them But for the main S. Clement in his Epistle to S. James translated by Ruffinus saith it was the doctrine of Peter according to the institution of Christ That Presbyters should be obedient to their Bishop in all things and in his third Epistle That Presbyters and Deacons and others of the Clergie must take heed that they do nothing without the license of the Bishop * And to make this business up compleat all these authorites of
clearly and only in the Bishop for he was incited to have punished all his Clergy Vniversos And he did actually suspend most of them Plurimos and I think it will not be believed the Presbytery of his Church should joyn with their Bishop to suspend themselves Add to this that Theodoret also affirms that Chrysostom intreated the Priests to live Canonically according to the sanctions of the Church Quas quicunque praevaricari praesumerent eos ad templum prohibebat accedere All them that transgressed the Canons he forbad them entrance into the Church *** Thus S. Hierom to Riparius Miror sanctum Episcopum in cujus Parochiâ esse Presbyter dicitur acquiescere furori ejus non virgâ Apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile tradere in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus fiat I wonder saith he that the holy Bishop is not moved at the fury of Vigilantius and does not break him with his Apostolical rod that by this temporary punishment his soul might be saved in the day of the Lord. * Hitherto the Bishops Pastoral staffe is of fair power and coercion The Council of Aquileia convoked against the Arians is full and mighty in asserting the Bishops power over the Laity and did actually exercise censures upon the Clergy where S. Ambrose was the Man that gave sentence against Palladius the Arian Palladius would have declined the judgment of the Bishops for he saw he should certainly be condemned and would fain have been judged by some honourable personages of the Laity But S. Ambrose said Sacerdotes de Laicis judicare debent non Laici de Sacerdotibus Bishops must judge of the Laity not the Laity of the Bishops That 's for the jus and for the factum it was the shutting up of the Council S. Ambrose Bishop of Milaine gave sentence Pronuncio illum indignum Sacerdotio carendum in loco ejus Catholicus ordinetur The same also was the case of Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia whom for heresie the Bishops at Constantinople deposed Eusebius giving sentence and chose Basilius in his Room * But their Grandfather was served no better Alexander Bishop of Alexandria served him neither better nor worse So Theodoret. Alexander autem Apostolicorum dogmatum praedicator prius quidem revocare eum admonitionibus consiliis nitebatur Cum vero eum superbire vidisset apertè impietatis facinora praedicare ex ordine Sacerdotali removit The Bishop first admonished the heretick but when to his false doctrine he added pertinacy he deprived him of the execution of his Priestly function This crime indeed deserved it highly It was for a less matter that Triferius the Bishop excommunicated Exuperantius a Presbyter viz. for a personal misdemeanour and yet this censure was ratified by the Council of Taurinum and his restitution was left arbitrio Episcopi to the good will and pleasure of the Bishop who had censured him Statuit quoque de Exuperantio Presbytero sancta Synodus qui ad injuriam sancti Episcopi sui Triferii gravia multa congesserat frequentibus eum contumeliis provocaverat propter quam causam ab eo fuerat Dominicâ communione privatus ut in ejus sit arbitrio restitutio ipsius in cujus potestate ejus fuit abjectio His restitution was therefore left in his power because originally his censure was * The like was in the case of Palladius a Laick in the same Council Qui à Triferio Sacerdote fuerat mulctatus Who was punished by Triferius the Bishop Hoc ei humanitate Concilio reservato ut ipse Triferius in potestate habeat quando voluerit ei relaxare Here is the Bishop censuring Palladius the Laick and excommunicating Exuperantius the Priest and this having been done by his own sole authority was ratified by the Council and the absolution reserved to the Bishop too which indeed was an act of favour for they having complained to the Council by the Council might have been absolved but they were pleased to reserve to the Bishop his own power * These are particular instances and made publick by acts conciliary intervening * But it was the General Canon and Law of Holy Church Thus we have it expressed in the Council of Agatho Contumaces vero Clerici prout dignitatis ordo promiserit ab Episcopis corrigantur Refractory Clerks must be punished by their Bishops according as the order of their dignity allows I end this particular with some Canons commanding Clerks to submit to the judgement and censures of their Bishop under a Canonical penalty and so go on ad alia In the second Council of Carthage Alypius Episcopus dixit nec illud praetermittendum est ut si quis fortè Presbyter ab Episcopo sùo correptus aut excommunicatus rumore vel superbiâ inflatus putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda vel aliud erigendum altare contra Ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit non exeat impunitus And the same is repeated in the Greek code of the African Canons If any Presbyter being excommunicated or otherwise punished by his Bishop shall not desist but contest with his Bishop let him by no means go unpunished The like is in the Council of Chalcedon the words are the same that I before cited out of the Canons of the Council of Antioch and of the Apostles But Carosus the Archimandrite spake home in that action 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The faith of the 318 Fathers of the Council of Nice into which I was baptized I know Other faith I know not They are Bishops They have power to excommunicate and condemn and they have power to do what they please other faith than this I know none * This is to purpose and it was in one of the four great Councils of Christendom which all ages since have received with all veneration and devout estimate Another of them was that of Ephesus conven'd against Nestorius and this ratifies those acts of condemnation which the Bishops had passed upon delinquent Clerks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. They who are for their unworthy practices condemned by the Synod or by their own Bishops although Nestorius did endeavour to restore them yet their condemnation should still remain vigorous and confirm'd Upon which Canon Balsamon makes this observation which indeed of it self is clear enough in the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence you have learned that Metropolitans and Bishops can judge their Clergie and suspend them and sometimes depose them Nay they are bound to it Pastoralis tamen necessitas habet ne per plures serpant dira contagia separare ab ovibus sanis morbidam It is necessary that the Bishop should separate the scabbed sheep from the sound lest their infection scatter so S. Austin And therefore the fourth Council of Carthage commands Vt Episcopus accusatores Fratrum excommunicet That the Bishop excommunicate the accuser of
new emergent Questions and they none of them all asserted either by Scripture or Antiquity that if I had a mind to leave the way of God and of the Catholick Church and run in pursuit of this meteor I might quickly be amuzed but should find nothing certain but a certainty of being misguided Therefore if not for conscience sake yet for prudence bonum est esse hîc it is good to remain in the Fold of Christ under the guard and supravision of those Shepherds Christ hath appointed and which his Sheep have alwayes followed For I consider this one thing to be enough to determine the Question My Sheep saith our blessed Saviour hear my voice if a stranger or a thief come him they will not hear Clearly thus That Christ's Sheep hear not the voice of a stranger nor will they follow him and therefore those Shepherds whom the Church hath followed in all Ages are no Strangers but Shepherds or Pastors of Christ's appointing or else Christ hath had no Sheep for if he hath then Bishops are the Shepherds for them they have ever followed I end with that golden Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis Magnoperè curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est Hoc est enim verè proprieque Catholicum For certainly the Catholick belief of the Church against Arius Eunomius Macedonius Apollinaris and the worst of Hereticks the Cataphrygians was never more truly received of all and alwayes and every where than is the government of the Church by Bishops Annunciare ergo Christianis Catholicis praeter id quod acceperunt nunquam licuit nunquam licet nunquam licebit It never was is nor ever shall be lawful to teach Christian people any new thing than what they have received from a primitive fountain and is descended in the stream of Catholick uninterrupted succession * I only add that the Church hath insinuated it to be the duty of all good Catholick Christians to pray for Bishops and as the case now stands for Episcopacy it self for there was never any Church-Liturgy but said Letanies for their King and for their Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE REAL PRESENCE AND SPIRITUAL OF CHRIST IN THE Blessed Sacrament Proved against the DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION By JER TAYLOR D. D. and Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First Oportuit emim certè ut non solùm anima per Spiritum Sanctum in beatam vitam ascenderet verùm etiam ut rude atque terrestre hoc corpus cognato sibi gustu tactu cibo ad immortalitatem reduceretur S. Cyril in Joh. l. 4. c. 14. Literam sequi signa pro rebus accipere servilis infirmitatis est S. Aug. l. 3. de doct Christ. LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Excellent MAJESTY MDCLXXIII To the Right Reverend D r. WARNER L. B. R. Right Reverend Father I Am against my Resolution and proper disposition by the over-ruling power of the Divine Providence which wisely disposes all things accidentally engaged in the Question of Transubstantiation which hath already so many times passed by the Fire and under the Saw of Contention that it might seem nothing could remain which had not been already considered and sifted to the bran I had been by chance ingaged in a conference with a person of another perswasion the man not unlearned nor unwary but much more confident than I perceived the strength of his argument could warrant and yet he had some few of the best which their Schools did furnish out and ordinarily minister to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Emissaries and Ministers of temptation to our people I then began to consider whether there were not much more in the secret of the Question which might not have perswaded him more fiercely than I could then see cause for or others at least from whom upon the strength of education he might have derived his confidence and searching into all the secrets of it I found infinite reason to reprove the boldness of those men who in the sum of affairs and upon examination will be found to think men damned if they will not speak non-sence and disbelieve their eyes and ears and defie their own reason and recede from Antiquity and believe them in whatsoever they dream or list to obtrude upon the world who hath been too long credulous or it could never have suffered such a proposition to be believed by so many men against all the demonstration in the world And certainly it is no small matter of wonder that those men of the Roman Church should pretend Learning and yet rest their new Articles of Faith upon propositions against all Learning that they should ingage their Scholars to read and believe Aristotle and yet destroy his Philosophy and reason by their Article that they should think all the world fools but themselves and yet talk and preach such things which if men had spoken before this new device arose they would have been thought mad But if these men had by chance or interest fallen upon the other Opinion which we maintain against them they would have filled the World with Declamations against the impossible Propositions and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of their Adversaries They would have called us Dunces Idiots men without souls without Philosophy without Sense without Reason without Logick destroyers of the very first notions of mankind But now that they are ingaged upon the impossible side they proceed with a prodigious boldness and seem to wonder that mankind does not receive from them all their first principles and credit the wildness and new notions of their Cataphysicks for Metaphysicks it is not Their Affirmatives and Negatives are neither natural nor above nor besides nature but against it in those first principles which are primely credible For that I may use S. Austin's words Nemo enim huic evidentiae contradicet nisi quem plus defensare delectat quod sentit quà m quid sentiendum sit invenire But I see it is possible for a man to believe any thing that he hath a mind to and this to me seems to have been permitted to reprove the vanity of mans imagination and the confidence of opinion to make us humble apt to learn inquisitive and charitable for if it be possible for so great a company of men of all sorts and capacities to believe such impossible things and to wonder that others do not eandem insaniam insanire it will concern the wisest man alive to be inquisitive in the Articles of his first perswasion to be diligent in his search modest in his sentences to prejudge no man to reprove the Adversaries with meekness and a spirit conscious of humane weakness and aptness to be abused But if we remember that Pere Coton Confessor to Henry the fourth of France was wont to say that he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand and his King at
second or third remove if here Christ begins to change the particulars of his discourse it can primarily relate to nothing but his death upon the Cross at which time he gave his flesh for the life of the world and so giving it it became meat the receiving this gift was a receiving of life for it was given for the life of the world The manner of receiving it is by faith and hearing the word of God submitting our understanding the digesting this meat is imitating the life of Christ conforming to his doctrine and example and as the Sacraments are instruments or acts of this manducation so they come under this discourse and no otherwise 18. But to return This very allegory of the word of God to be called meat and particularly Manna which in this Chapter Christ particularly alludes to is not unusual in the old Testament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Moses said unto them This is the word which the Lord hath given us to eat This is the word which the Lord hath ordained you see what is the food of the soul even the eternal Word of God c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God the most honourable and eldest of things is called Mana and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The soul is nourished by the Word qui pastus pulcherrimus est animorum 19. And therefore now I will resume those testimonies of Clemens Alexandrinus of Eusebius S. Basil S. Hierome and S. Bernard which I wav'd before all agreeing upon this exposition that the word of God Christs doctrine is the flesh he speaks of and the receiving it and practising it are the eating his flesh for this sence is the literal and proper and S. Hierom is express to affirm that the other exposition is mystical and that this is the more true and proper and therefore the saying of Bellarmine that they only give the mystical sence is one of his confident sayings without reason or pretence of proof and whereas he adds that they do not deny that these words are also understood literally of the Sacrament I answer it is sufficient that they agree in this sence and the other Fathers do so expound it with an exclusion to the natural sence of eating Christ in the Sacrament particularly this appears in the testimonies of Origen and Saint Ambrose above quoted to which I add the words of Eusebius in the third book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica expounding the 63. verse of the sixth of Saint John he brings in Christ speaking thus Think not that I speak of this flesh which I bear and do not imagine that I appoint you to drink this sensible and corporal blood But know ye that the words which I have spoken are spirit and life Nothing can be fuller to exclude their interpretation and to affirm ours though to do so be not usual unless they were to expound Scripture in opposition to an adversary and to require such hard conditions in the sayings of men that when they speak against Titius they shall be concluded not to speak against Cajus if they do not clap their contrary negative to their positive affirmative though Titius and Cajus be against one another in the cause is a device to escape rather than to intend truth and reality in the discourses of men I conclude It is notorious and evident what Erasmus notes upon this place Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrinâ coelesti sic enim dicit panem suum ut frequenter dixit sermonem suum The Ancient Fathers expound this place of the heavenly doctrine so he calls the bread his own as he said often the word to be his And if the concurrent testimonies of Origen Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus S. Basil Athanasius Eusebius S. Hierom S. Ambrose S. Austin Theophylact and S. Bernard are a good security for the sence of a place of Scripture we have read their evidence and may proceed to sentence 20. But it was impossible but these words falling upon the allegory of bread and drink and signifying the receiving Christ crucified and communicating with his passion in all the wayes of Faith and Sacrament should also meet with as allegorical expounders and for the likeness of expression be referr'd to sacramental manducation And yet I said this cannot at all infer Transubstantiation though sacramental manducation were only and principally intended For if it had been spoken of the Sacrament the words had been verified in the spiritual sumption of it for as Christ is eaten by faith out of the Sacrament so is he also in the Sacrament as he is real and spiritual meat to the worthy Hearer so is he to the worthy Communicant as Christ's flesh is life to all that obey him so to all that obediently remember him so Christ's flesh is meat indeed however it be taken if it be taken spiritually but not however it be taken if it be taken carnally He is nutritive in all the wayes of spiritual manducation but not in all the wayes of natural eating by their own confession nor in any by ours And therefore it is a vain confidence to run away with the conclusion if they should gain one of the premises But the truth is this It is neither properly spoken of the Sacrament neither if it were would it prove any thing of Transubstantiation 21. I will not be alone in my assertion though the reasonableness and evidence would bear me out Saint Austin saith the same Spiritualiter intelligite quod loquutus sum vobis Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit nos That which I have spoken is to be understood spiritually ye are not to eat that body which ye see I have commended a Sacrament to you which being understood spiritually will give you life where besides that he gives testimony to the main question on our behalf he also makes sacramentally and spiritually to be all one And again Vt quia jam similitudinem mortis ejus in baptismo accipimus similitudinem quoque sanguinis carnis sumamus ita ut veritas non desit in sacramento ridiculum nullum fiat in Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus That as we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood so that neither truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor the Pagans ridiculously affirm that we should drink the blood of the crucified Man Nothing could be spoken more plain in this Question We receive Christ's body in the Eucharist as we are baptized into his death that is by figure and likeness In the Sacrament there is a verity or truth of Christ's body and yet no drinking of blood or eating of flesh so as the Heathen may calumniate us by saying we do that which the men of Capernaum thought Christ taught
the Fathers were not against them what need these Arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles SECT II. FIRST We alledge that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in whole or in part for there is the same reason of them both than that which we have preached let him be Anathema and secondly by the sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council that at Ephesus That it should not be lawful for any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism Judaism or Heresie if they were Bishops or Clerks they should be depos'd if Lay-men they should be accursed And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon Bromyard complain'd of it long since and the mischief increases daily They have now a new Article of Faith ready for the stamp which may very shortly become necessary to salvation we mean that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Whether the Pope be above a Council or no we are not sure whether it be an Article of Faith amongst them or not It is very near one if it be not Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth declar'd for the Popes Supremacy But John Gerson who was at the Council sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak but yet some others spake them so confidently before it that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth decreed for the Pope against the Council So that it is cross and pile and whether for a penny when it can be done it is now a known case it shall become an Article of Faith But for the present it is a probationary Article and according to Bellarmine's expression is serè de fide it is almost an Article of Faith they want a little age and then they may go alone But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Article but it is sine controversiâ credendum it must be believ'd and must not be controverted that although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation Now this being a matter of fact whether they did or did not believe it every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council and determin'd against evident truth it being notorious that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief But we proceed to other Instances SECT III. THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches begun by the Preachings of Martyn Luther and others and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse that it became a shame to it self and a reproach to Christendom it was also so very an Innovation that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the ancient Doctors And the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias Bishop Fisher of Rochester sayes that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indulgences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third towards the end of the twelfth Century but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the eighth who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England 1300. years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius This Pope lived and died with great infamy and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution But that about this time Indulgences began is more than probable much before it is certain they were not For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander the third if he had introduc'd them and much rather if they had been as ancient as Saint Gregory as some vainly and weakly pretend from no greater authority than their own Legends it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law would have made mention of so considerable a Point and so great a part of the Roman Religion as things are now order'd If they had been Doctrines of the Church then as they are now it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the Primitive Church when the Bishops impos'd severe penances and that they were almost quite perform'd and a great cause of pity intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance and according to the example of Saint Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing nothing of it but the abused name remains For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christ's merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants and for fear Christ should not have enough the Saints have a surplusage of
were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half-consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolv'd that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration We add this only to make the conviction more manifest We have thought fit to annex some few but very clear testimonies of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory Saint Cyprian saith Quando istinc excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis effectus When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction Saint Dionysius call the extremity of death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our Agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never-failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates Saint Justin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd but the souls of the just into Paradise where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels Saint Ambrose saith That Death is a Haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it finds every man so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come The same is affirmed by Saint Hilary c Saint Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of Rest. Saint Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms That after this life there is no purgation For after Christ's ascension into Heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of Darkness said Olympiodorus And lastly we recite the words of Saint Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or any of the precedent are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we add the saying of Christ and we rely upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgment but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgment of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgment or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow SECT V. THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches Declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third one thousand two hundred years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof
and whose eternal interest I do so much desire may be secured and advanced Now my Lord I had thought I had been secured in the Article not only for the truth of the Doctrine but for the advantages and comforts it brings I was confident they would not because there was no cause any men should be angry at it For it is strange to me that any man should desire to believe God to be more severe and less gentle That men should be greedy to find out inevitable ways of being damned that they should be unwilling to have the vail drawn away from the face of Gods goodness and that they should desire to see an angry countenance and be displeased at the glad tidings of the Gospel of peace It is strange to me that men should desire to believe that their pretty Babes which are strangled at the gates of the womb or die before Baptism should for ought they know die eternally and be damned and that themselves should consent to it and to them that invent Reasons to make it seem just They might have had not only pretences but reasons to be troubled if I had represented God to be so great a hater of Mankind as to damn millions of millions for that which they could not help or if I had taught that their infants might by chance have gone to Hell and as soon as ever they came for life descend to an eternal death If I had told them evil things of God and hard measures and evil portions to their children they might have complained but to complain because I say God is just to all and merciful and just to infants to fret and be peevish because I tell them that nothing but good things are to be expected from our good God is a thing that may well be wondred at My Lord I take a great comfort in this that my doctrine stands on that side where Gods justice and goodness and mercy stand apparently and they that speak otherwise in this Article are forced by convulsions and violences to draw their doctrine to comply with Gods justice and the reputation of his most glorious Attributes And after great and laborious devices they must needs do it pitifully and jejunely but I will prejudice no mans opinion I only will defend my own because in so doing I have the honour to be an advocate for God who will defend and accept me in the simplicity and innocency of my purposes and the profession of his truth Now my Lord I find that some believe this doctrine ought not now to have been published Others think it not true The first are the wise and few the others are the many who have been taught otherwise and either have not leisure or abilities to make right judgments in the question Concerning the first I have given what accounts I could to that excellent man the Lord Bishop of Sarum who out of his great piety and prudence and his great kindness to me was pleased to call for accounts of me Concerning the other your Lordship in great humility and in great tenderness to those who are not perswaded of the truth of this doctrine hath called upon me to give all those just measures of satisfaction which I could be obliged to by the interest of any Christian vertue In obedience to this pious care and prudent counsel of your Lordship I have published these ensuing Papers hoping that God will bless them to the purposes whither they are designed however I have done all that I could and all that I am commanded and all that I was counselled to And as I submit all to Gods blessing and the events of his providence and Oeconomy so my doctrine I humbly submit to my holy Mother the Church of England and rejoyce in any circumstances by which I can testifie my duty to her and my obedience to your Lordship CHAP. VII A further EXPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF Original Sin SECT I. Of the Fall of Adam and the Effects of it upon Him and Vs. IT was well said of S. Augustine in this thing though he said many others in it less certain Nihil est peccato Originali ad praedicandum noâ—ius nihil ad intelligendum secretius The article we all confess but the manner of explicating it is not an apple of knowledge but of contention Having therefore turned to all the ways of Reason and Scripture I at last apply my self to examine how it was affirmed by the first and best Antiquity For the Doctrine of Original sin as I have explicated it is taxed of Singularity and Novelty and though these words are very freely bestowed upon any thing we have not learned or consented to and that we take false measures of these Appellatives reckoning that new that is but renewed and that singular that is not taught vulgarly or in our own Societies Yet I shall easily quit the proposition from these charges and though I do confess and complain of it that the usual affirmations of Original sin are a popular error yet I will make it appear that it is no Catholick doctrine that it prevailed by prejudice and accidental authorities but after such prevailing it was accused and reproved by the Greatest and most Judicious persons of Christendom And first that judgment may the better be given of the Allegations I shall bring from authority I shall explicate and state the Question that there may be no impertinent allegations of Antiquity for both sides nor clamours against the persons interested in either perswasion nor any offence taken by error and misprision It is not therefore intended nor affirmed that there is no such thing as Original sin for it is certain and affirmed by all Antiquity upon many grounds of Scripture That Adam sinned and his sin was Personally his but Derivatively ours that is it did great hurt to us to our bodies directly to our souls indirectly and accidentally 2. For Adam was made a living soul the great representative of Mankind and the beginner of a temporal happy life and to that purpose he was put in a place of temporal happiness where he was to have lived as long as he obeyed God so far as he knew nothing else being promised to him or implied but when he sinned he was thrown from thence and spoiled of all those advantages by which he was enabled to live and be happy This we find in the story the reasonableness of the parts of which teaches us all this doctrine To which if we add the words of S. Paul the case is clear The first Adam was made a living soul The last Adam was made a quickning Spirit Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual but that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth earthly the second man is the Lord from Heaven As is the earthly such are they that are earthly and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly and as we have born
have transacted the solennity with better circumstances and given answers with more truth For the Question is asked of believing in the present And if the Godfathers answer in the name of the child I do believe it is notorious they speak false and ridiculously for the Infant is not capable of believing and if he were he were also capable of dissenting and how then do they know his minde And therefore Tertullian gives advice that the Baptism of Infants should be deferred till they could give an account of their Faith And the same also is the Counsel of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzum although he allows them to hasten it in case of necessity for though his reason taught him what was fit yet he was overborn with the practice and Opinion of his Age which began to bear too violently upon him and yet in another place he makes mention of some to whom Baptism was not administred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of Infancy To which if we adde that the parents of S. Austin S. Hierom and S. Ambrose although they were Christian yet did not baptize their children before they were 30 years of age and S. Chrysostome who was instituted and bred up in Religion by the famous and beloved Bishop Meletius was yet not baptized till after he was twenty years of age and Gregory Nazianzen though he was the son of a Bishop yet was not Christened till he came to man's age it will be very considerable in the example and of great efficacy for destroying the supposed necessity or derivation from the Apostles 28. But however it is against the perpetual analogie of Christ's Doctrine to baptize Infants For besides that Christ never gave any precept to baptize them nor ever himself nor his Apostles that appears did baptize any of them all that either he or his Apostles said concerning it requires such previous dispositions to Baptism of which Infants are not capable and these are Faith and Repentance And not to instance in those innumerable places that require Faith before this Sacrament there needs no more but this one saying of our Blessed Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned plainly thus Faith and Baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven but if he have not Faith Baptism shall doe him no good So that if Baptism be necessary then so is Faith and much more for want of Faith damns absolutely it is not said so of the want of Baptism Now if this decretory sentence be to be understood of persons of age and if children by such an answer which indeed is reasonable enough be excused from the necessity of Faith the want of which regularly does damn then it is sottish to say the same incapacity of Reason and Faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of Baptism which is less necessary and to which Faith and many other acts are necessary predispositions when it is reasonably and humanely received The Conclusion is that Baptism is also to be deferred till the time of Faith And whether Infants have Faith or no is a question to be disputed by persons that care not how much they say not how little they prove 29. First Personal and actual Faith they have none for they have no acts of understanding and besides how can any man know that they have since he never saw any sign of it neither was he told so by any one that could tell Secondly Some say they have imputative Faith but then so let the Sacrament be too that is if they have the parents Faith or the Church's then so let Baptism be imputed also by derivation from them that as in their mothers womb and while they hang on their breasts they live upon their mothers nourishment so they may upon the Baptism of their parents or their Mother the Church For since Faith is necessary to the susception of Baptism and themselves confess it by striving to find out new kinds of Faith to dawb the matter up such as the Faith is such must be the Sacrament for there is no proportion between an actual Sacrament and an imputative Faith this being in immediate and necessary order to that And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual Faith all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of Baptism Thirdly the first of these devices was that of Luther and his Scholars the second of Calvin and his and yet there is a third device which the Church of Rome teaches and that is that Infants have habitual Faith But who told them so how can they prove it what Revelation or reason teaches any such thing Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new Master Can an Infant sent into a Mahumetan province be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man then if he had not been baptized Are there any acts precedent concomitant or consequent to this pretended habit This strange invention is absolutely without art without Scripture Reason or Authority But the men are to be excused unless there were a better But for all these strategems the Argument now alledged against the Baptism of Infants is demonstrative and unanswerable 30. To which also this consideration may be added that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants upon whom is the imposition laid to whom is the command given to the parents or to the children Not to the children for they are not capable of a Law not to the parents for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others and Infants may be damned for their fathers carelesness or malice It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity and if it be not necessary it is certain it is not reasonable and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed and therefore it is to be presumed that it ought to be understood and administred according as other precepts are with reference to the capacity of the subject and the reasonableness of the thing 31. For I consider that the baptizing of Infants does rush us upon such inconveniences which in other Questions we avoid like rocks which will appear if we Discourse thus Either Baptism produces spiritual effects or it produces them not If it produces not any why is such contention about it what are we the nearer heaven if we are baptized and if it be neglected what are we the farther of But if as without all peradventure all the Paedo-baptists will say Baptism does doe a work upon the Soul producing spiritual benefits and advantages these advantages are produced by the external work of the Sacrament alone or by that as it is helped by the co-operaâ—ion
sent away without cause and because the negative is in this case later then the affirmative it must enter as the affirmatives doe when they happen to be later then the negative Adde to this that for the introduction of a negative against the possession of a prevailing affirmative it is not enough to invalidate the arguments of the affirmative by making it appear they are not demonstrative for although that might have been sufficient to hinder its first entry yet it is not enough to throw it out because it hath gotten strength and reasonableness by long custome and dwelling upon the minds of men and hath some forces beyond what it derives from the first causes of its introduction And therefore whoever will perswade men to quit their long perswasions and their consonant practices must not tell them that such perswasions are not certain and that they cannot prove such practices to be necessary but that the Doctrine is false against some other revealed Truth which they admit and the practice evil not onely useless but dangerous or criminal So that the Anabaptists cannot acquit themselves and promote their cause by going about to invalidate our Arguments unless they do not onely weaken our affirmative by taking away not one or two but all the confidences of its strength but also make their own negative to include a duty or its enemy to be guilty of a crime And therefore if it were granted that we cannot prove the Baptism of infants to be necessary and that they could speak probably against all the Arguments of the right Believers yet it were intolerable that they should be attended to unless they pretend and make their pretence good that they teach piety and duty and necessity for nothing less then these can make recompence for so violent so great an inroad and rape upon the perswasions of men Whether the Anabaptists do so or no will be considered in the sequel Thirdly These Arguments which are in this Section urged in behalf of the Anabaptists their persons I mean finally not their cause at all but in order to their persons can doe the less hurt because they rely upon our grounds not upon theirs that is they are intended to perswade us to a charitable comport towards the men but not at all to perswade their Doctrine For it is remarkable that none of them have made use of this way of arguing since the publication of these Adversaria and of some things they can never make use As in that exposition of the words of S. Peter Be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost which is expounded to be meant not in Baptism but in Confirmation which is a Rite the Anabaptists allow not and therefore they cannot make use of any such Exposition which supposes a Divine institution of that which they at no hand admit And so it is in divers other particulars as any wary person that is cautious he be not deluded by any weak and plausible pretence of theirs may easily observe But after all the Arguments for the Baptism of children are firm and valid and though shaken by the adverse plea yet as trees that stand in the face of storms take the surer root so will the right Reasons of the right Believers if they be represented with their proper advantages Ad 3. 13. The first Argument is the Circumcising of children which we say does rightly infer the Baptizing them The Anabaptist says no because admit that Circumcision were the type of Baptism yet it follows not that the circumstances of one must infer the same circumstances in the other which he proves by many instances and so far he sayes true And therefore if there were no more in the Argument then can be inferred from the type to the antitype both the supposition the superstructure would be infirm because it is uncertain whether Circumcision be a type of Baptism and if it were granted it cannot infer equal circumstances But then this Argument goes farther and to other and more material purposes even to the overthrow of their chief pretension For Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith And if Infants who have no Faith yet can by a Ceremony be admitted into the Covenant of Faith as S. Paul conâ—ends that all the circumcised were and it is certain of Infants that they were reckoned amongst the Lord's people as soon as they were circumcised then it follows that the great pretence of the Anabaptists that for want of Faith Infants are incapable of the Sacrament comes to nothing For if Infants were admitted into the Covenant of Faith by a Ceremony before they could enter by choice and reason by Faith and Obedience then so they may now their great and onely pretence notwithstanding Now whereas the Anabaptist says that in the admission of the Jewish Infants to Circumcision and of Christian Infants to Baptism there is this difference that Circumcision imprints a character on the flesh but Baptism does not Circumcision had no word added but Baptism hath and therefore Infants were capable of the former but not of the latter for they might be cut with the Circumcising-stone but they cannot be instructed with the word of Baptism in that there was a character left by which they might be instructed when they come to age but in Baptism there is no character and the word they understand not therefore that was to purpose but this is not I answer that this is something to the circumstance of the Sacraments but nothing to the substance of the Argument For if the Covenant of Faith can belong to Infants then it is certain they can have the benefit of Faith before they have the grace that is God will doe them benefit before they can do him service and that is no new thing in Religion that God should love us first But then that God is not as much before-hand with Christian as with Jewish Infants is a thing which can never be believed by them who understand that in the Gospel God opened all his treasures of mercies and unsealed the fountain itself whereas before he poured forth only rivulets of mercy and comfort That Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith Saint Paul affirms that so also is Baptism if it be any thing at all the Anabaptists must needs confess because they refuse to give Baptism to them who have not Faith and make it useless to them as being a Seal without a Deed. But then the Argument is good upon its first grounds But then for the title Reparties but now mentioned that Circumcision imprints a character but Baptism does not that Baptism hath a word but Circumcision had none they are just nothing to the purpose For as that character imprinted on the Infants flesh would have been nothing of instruction to them unless there had been a word added that is unless they had been told the meaning of it when they came to be men so neither will the word
if he had not been rescued by the Civil Power But men have too much neglected all the ministeries of Grace and this most especially and have not given themselves to a right understanding of it and so neglected it yet more But because the prejudice which these parts of the Christian Church have suffered for want of it is very great as will appear by enumeration of the many and great Blessings consequent to it I am not without hope that it may be a service acceptable to God and an useful ministery to the Souls of my Charges if by instructing them that know not and exhorting them that know I set forward the practice of this Holy Rite and give reasons why the people ought to love it and to desire it and how they are to understand and practise it and consequently with what dutious affections they are to relate to those persons whom God hath in so special and signal manner made to be for their good and eternal benefit the Ministers of the Spirit and Salvation S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias my Predecessor in the See of Down and Connor reports that it was the care of that good Prelate to renew the rite of Confirmation in his Diocese where it had been long neglected and gone into desuetude It being too much our case in Ireland I find the same necessity and am oblig'd to the same procedure for the same reason and in pursuance of so excellent an example Hoc enim est Evangelizare Christum said S. Austin non tantùm docere quae sunt dicenda de Christo sed etiam quae observanda ei qui accedit ad compagem corporis Christi For this is to preach the Gospel not only to teach those things which are to be said of Christ but those also which are to be observed by every one who desires to be confederated into the Society of the Body of Christ which is his Church that is not only the doctrines of good Life but the Mysteries of Godliness and the Rituals of Religion which issue from a Divine fountain are to be declar'd by him who would fully preach the Gospel In order to which performance I shall declare 1. The Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation 2. That this Rite was to be a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministration 3. That it was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Churches 4. That this Rite was appropriate to the Ministery of Bishops 5. That Prayer and Imposition of the Bishop's hands did make the whole Ritual and though other things were added yet they were not necessary or any thing of the Institution 6. That many great Graces and Blessings were consequent to the worthy reception and due ministration of it 7. I shall add something of the manner of Preparation to it and Reception of it SECT I. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Holy Rite of Confirmation IN the Church of Rome they have determin'd Confirmation to be a Sacrament proprii nominis properly and really and yet their Doctors have some of them at least been paulò iniquiores a little unequal and unjust to their proposition insomuch that from themselves we have had the greatest opposition in this Article Bonacina and Henriquez allow the proposition but make the Sacrament to be so unnecessary that a little excuse may justifie the omission and almost neglect of it And Loemelius and Daniel à Jesu and generally the English Jesuits have to serve some ends of their own Family and Order disputed it almost into contempt that by representing it as unnecessary they might do all the ministeries Ecclesiastical in England without the assistance of Bishops their Superiors whom they therefore love not because they are so But the Theological Faculty of Paris have condemn'd their Doctrine as temerarious and savouring of Heresie and in the later Schools have approv'd rather the Doctrine of Gamachaeus Estius Kellison and Bellarmine who indeed do follow the Doctrine of the most Eminent persons in the Ancient School Richard of Armagh Scotus Hugo Cavalli and Gerson the Learned Chancellor of Paris who following the Old Roman order Amalarius and Albinus do all teach Confirmation to be of great and pious Use of Divine Original and to many purposes necessary according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the Primitive Church Whether Confirmation be a Sacrament of no is of no use to dispute and if it be disputed it can never be prov'd to be so as Baptism and the Lord's Supper that is as generally necessary to Salvation but though it be no Sacrament it cannot follow that it is not of very great Use and holiness and as a Man is never the less tied to Repentance though it be no Sacrament so neither is he ever the less oblig'd to receive Confirmation though it be as it ought acknowledg'd to be of an Use and Nature inferior to the two Sacraments of Divine direct and immediate institution It is certain that the Fathers in a large Symbolical and general sence call it a Sacrament but mean not the same thing by that word when they apply it to Confirmation as they do when they apply it to Baptism and the Lord's Supper That it is an excellent and Divine Ordinance to purposes Spiritual that it comes from God and ministers in our way to God that is all we are concern'd to inquire after and this I shall endeavour to prove not only against the Jesuits but against all Opponents of what side soever My First Argument from Scripture is what I learn from Optatus and S. Cyril Optatus writing against the Donatists hath these words Christ descended into the water not that in him who is God was any thing that could be made cleaner but that the water was to precede the future Vnction for the initiating and ordaining and fulfilling the mysteries of Baptism He was wash'd when he was in the hands of John then followed the order of the mystery and the Father finish'd what the Son did ask and what the Holy Ghost declar'd The Heavens were open'd God the Father anointed him the Spiritual Vnction presently descended in the likeness of a Dove and sate upon his head and was spred all over him and he was called the Christ when he was the anointed of the Father To whom also lest Imposition of hands should seem to be wanting the voice of God was heard from the cloud saying This is my Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him That which Optatus says is this that upon and in Christ's person Baptism Confirmation and Ordination were consecrated and first appointed He was Baptized by S. John he was Confirm'd by the Holy Spirit and anointed with Spiritual Unction in order to that great work of obedience to his Father's will and he was Consecrated by the voice of God from Heaven In all things Christ is the Head and the
first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should not be re-baptized Manus tantùm eis imponatur ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum that is Let them be Confirm'd let there be Imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact But I also find it in a greater record in the General Council of Constantinople where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received secundùm constitutum Officium there was an Office appointed for it and it is in the Greeks Euchologion sigillatos primò scil Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis c. signantes eos dicimus Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils all giving witness to this holy Rite and that in pursuance also of Scripture are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian. SECT IV. The BISHOPS were always and the only Ministers of Confirmation SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans who were Baptized by Philip could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost answers Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations but this answer not satisfying he adds Hoc donum non habebat erat enim ex Septem illis id quod magìs videtur dicendum Vnde meâ sententiâ hic Philippus unus ex septem erat secundus à Stephano ideo Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat neque enim facultatem habebat hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans which thing is rather to be said than the other for Philip was one of the Seven and in my opinion next to S. Stephen therefore though he Baptized yet he gave not the Holy Ghost for he had no power so to do for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles Nam virtutem quidem acceperant Diaconi faciendi Signa non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare unde praecipuos non alios videmus hoc facere The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles but not of giving the Holy Spirit therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles whence it comes to pass that we see the chiefs in the Church and no other to do this S. Dionys says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this was the ancient custom of the Church And this was wont to be done by the Bishops for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ said S. Ambrose A solis Episcopis By Bishops only said S. Austin For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles said S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost that it comes from Scripture that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that it is done for the prevention of Schisms that the safety of the Church depends upon it But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter and published in the first Tome of the Councils are very full to this particular De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est non ab alio quà m ab Episcopo fieri licere nam Presbyteri licèt sâ—nt Sacerdotes Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi ut vel consignent vel paracletum Spiritum tradant non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat verùm illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum quae asserit Petrum Joannem esse directos qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum Concerning Confirmation of Infants it is manifest it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop for although the Presbyters be Priests yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy But that these things are only due to Bishops is â—ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church but by that of the Acts of the Apostles where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized Hoc unum à majoribus fit id est à summis Pontificibus quod à minoribus perfici non potest said P. Melchiades This of Confirmation is only done by the greater Ministers that is by the Bishops and cannot be done by the lesser This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke For this is our great Rule in this case what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty we see it done thus and by these men and by no others and no otherwise and we have no other authority and we have no reason to go another way The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Chrysostom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals his Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach such things as are not set down in Books their Practice is a Sermon their Example in these things must be our Rule or else we must walk irregularly and have no Rule but Chance and Humour Empire and Usurpation and therefore much rather when it is recorded in Holy Writ must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable But how if a Bishop be not to be had or not ready S. Ambrose is pretended to have answered Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus A Presbyter may consign if the Bishop be not present and Amalarius affirms Sylvestrum Papam praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret quantum potuit subvenisse propter absentiam Episcoporum necessitate addidisse ut à Presbytero Vngerentur That Pope Sylvester fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation brought remedy as far as he could and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet sieri non debuit The thing ought
earnest desires to serve God If he have not then in vain hath he received either Baptism or Confirmation But if he have it is certain that of himself he cannot do these things he cannot of himself think a good thought Does he therefore think well That is from the Holy Spirit of God To conclude this inquiry The Holy Ghost is promised to all men to profit withall that 's plain in Scripture Confirmation or Prayer and Imposition of the Bishops hand is the Solemnity and Rite us'd in Scripture for the conveying of that promise and the effect is felt in all the Sanctifications and changes of the Soul and he that denies these things hath not Faith nor the true notices of Religion or the spirit of Christianity Hear what the Scriptures yet further say in this Mystery Now he which confirmeth or stablisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed us is God Who hath also sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts Here is a description of the whole mysterious part of this Rite God is the Author of the Grace The Apostles and all Christians are the suscipients and receive this Grace by this Grace we are adopted and incorporated into Christ God hath anointed us that is he hath given us this Unction from above he hath sealed us by his Spirit made us his own bored our ears through made us free by his perpetual service and hath done all these things in token of a greater he hath given us his Spirit to testifie to us that he will give us of his glory These words of S. Paul besides that they evidently contain in them the spiritual part of this Ritual are also expounded of the Rite and Sacramental if self by S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact that I may name no more For in this Mystery Christos nos efficit misericordiam Dei nobis annunciat per Spiritum Sanctum said S. John Damascen he makes us his anointed ones and by the Holy Spirit he declares his eternal mercy towards us Nolite tangere Christos meos Touch not mine anointed ones For when we have this Signature of the Lord upon us the Devils cannot come near to hurt us unless we consent to their temptations and drive the Holy Spirit of the Lord from us SECT VII Of Preparation to Confirmation and the Circumstances of Receiving it IF Confirmation have such gracious effects why do we Confirm little Children whom in all reason we cannot suppose to be capable and receptive of such Graces It will be no answer to this if we say That this very question is asked concerning the Baptism of Infants to which as great effects are consequent even Pardon of all our sins and the New birth and Regeneration of the Soul unto Christ For in these things the Soul is wholly passive and nothing is required of the suscipient but that he put in no bar against the Grace which because Infants cannot do they are capable of Baptism but it follows not that therefore they are capable of Confirmation because this does suppose them such as to need new assistances and is a new profession and a personal undertaking and therefore requires personal abilities and cannot be done by others as in the case of Baptism The Aids given in Confirmation are in order to our contention and our danger our temptation and spiritual warfare and therefore it will not seem equally reasonable to Confirm Children as to Baptize them To this I answer That in the Primitive Church Confirmation was usually administred at the same time with Baptism for we find many Records that when the Office of Baptism was finished and the baptized person devested of the white Robe the person was carried again to the Bishop to be Confirmed as I have already shewn out of Dionysius and divers others The reasons why anciently they were ministred immediately after one another is not only because the most of them that were Baptized were of years to chuse their Religion and did so and therefore were capable of all that could be consequent to Baptism or annexed to it or ministred with it and therefore were also at the same time Communicated as well as Confirmed but also because the solemn Baptisms were at solemn times of the year at Faster only and Whitsuntide and only in the Cathedral or Bishop's Church in the chief City whither when the Catechumens came and had the opportunity of the Bishop's presence they took the advantage ut Sacramento utroque renascantur as S. Cyprian's expression is that they might be regenerated by both the Mysteries and they also had the third added viz. the Holy Eucharist This simultaneous ministration hath occasioned some few of late to mistake Confirmation for a part of Baptism but no distinct Rite or of distinct effect save only that it gave ornament and complement or perfection to the other But this is infinitely confuted by the very first ministery of Confirmation in the world For there was a great interval between S. Philip's Baptizing and the Apostles Confirming the Samaritans where also the difference is made wider by the distinction of the Minister a Deacon did one none but an Apostle and his Successor a Bishop could do the other and this being of so universal a Practice and Doctrine in the Primitive Church it is a great wonder that any Learned men could suffer an error in so apparent a case It is also clear in two other great remarks of the practice of the Primitive Church The one is of them who were Baptized in their sickness the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they recovered they were commanded to address themselves to the Bishop to be Confirmed which appears in the XXXVIII Canon of the Council of Eliberis and the XLVI Canon of the Council of Laodicea which I have before cited upon other occasions The other is that of Hereticks returning to the Church who were Confirmed not only long after Baptism but after their Apostasie and their Conversion For although Episcopal Confirmation was the inlargement of Baptismal grace and commonly administred the same day yet it was done by interposition of distinct Ceremonies and not immediately in time Honorius Augustodunensis tells That when the Baptized on the eighth day had laid aside their Mitres or proper habit used in Baptism then they were usually Confirmed or consigned with Chrism in the Forehead by the Bishop And when children were Baptized irregularly or besides the ordinary way in Villages and places distant from the Bishop Confirmation was deferr'd said Durandus And it is certain that this affair did not last long without variety Sometimes they ministred both together sometimes at greater sometimes at lesser distances and it was left indifferent in the Church to do the one or the other or the third according to the opportunity and the discretion of the Bishop But afterward in the middle and descending Ages it grew to be a question not whether it were
invalidity of their first pretended Baptism or their not using at all Confirmation in their Heretical Conventicles But the repetition of Confirmation is expresly forbidden by the Council of Tarracon cap. 6. and by P. Gregory the Second and sanctum Chrisma collatum altaris honor propter consecrationem quae per Episcopos tantùm exercenda conferenda sunt evelli non queunt said the Fathers in a Council at Toledo Confirmation and Holy Orders which are to be given by Bishops alone can never be annulled and therefore they can never be repeated And this relies upon those severe words of S. Paul having spoken of the foundation of the Doctrine of Baptisms and Laying on of hands he says if they fall away they can never be renewed that is the ministery of Baptism and Confirmation can never be repeated To Christians that sin after these ministrations there is only left a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Expergiscimini that they arise from slumber and stir up the Graces of the Holy Ghost Every man ought to be careful that he do not grieve the Holy Spirit but if he does yet let him not quench him for that is a desperate case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Holy Spirit is the great conservative of the new Life only keep the Keeper take caâ—e that the Spirit of God do not depart from you for the great Ministery of the Spirit is but once for as Baptism is so is Confirmation I end this Discourse with a plain exhortation out of S. Ambrose upon those words of S. Paul He that confirmeth us with you in Christ is God Repete quia accepisti signaculum spirituale spiritum sapientiae intellectûs spiritum consilii atque virtutis spiritum cognitionis atque pietatis spiritum sancti timoris serva quod accepisti Signavit te Deus Pater confirmavit te Christus Dominus Remember that thou who hast been Confirmed hast receiv'd the Spiritual Signature the spirit of wisdom and understanding the spirit of counsel and strength the spirit of knowledge and godliness the spirit of holy fear keep what thou hast receiv'd The Father hath sealâ—d thee and Christ thy Lord hath confirmed thee by his Divine Spirit and he will never depart from thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unless by evil works we estrange him from us The same advice is given by Prudentius Cultor Dei memento Te fontis lavacri Rorem subiisse Sanctum Et Chrismate innotatum Remember how great things ye have received and what God hath done for you ye are of his Flock and his Militia ye are now to sight his battels and therefore to put on his armor and to implore his auxiliaries and to make use of his strengths and always to be on his side against all his and all our Enemies But he that desires Grace must not despise to make use of all the instruments of Grace For though God communicates his invisible Spirit to you yet that he is pleas'd to do it by visible instruments is more than he needs but not more than we do need And therefore since God descends to our infirmities let us carefully and lovingly address our selves to his Ordinances that as we receive Remission of sins by the washing of Water and the Body and Blood of Christ by the ministery of consecrated Symbols so we may receive the Holy Ghost sub Ducibus Christianae militiae by the Prayer and Imposition of the Bishops hands whom our Lord Jesus hath separated to this Ministery For if you corroborate your self by Baptism they are the words of S. Gregory Nazianzen and then take heed for the future by the most excellent and firmest aids consigning your mind and body with the Vnction from above viz. in the Holy Rite of Confirmation with the Holy Ghost as the Children of Israel did with the aspersion on the door-posts in the night of the death of the first-born of Egypt what evil shall happen to you meaning that no evil can invade you and what aid shall you get If you sit down you shall be without fear and if you rest your sleep shall be sweet unto you But if when ye have received the Holy Spirit you live not according to his Divine principles you will lose him again that is you will lose all the blessing though the impression does still remain till ye turn quite Apostates in pessimis hominibus manebit licèt ad judicium saith S. Austin the Holy Ghost will remain either as a testimony of your Vnthankfulness unto condemnation or else as a seal of Grace and an earnest or your inheritance of eternal Glory THE END A DISCOURSE OF The NATVRE OFFICES and MEASVRES OF FRIENDSHIP WITH Rules of conducting it In a Letter to the most Ingenious and Excellent M rs KATHARINE PHILIPS Madam THE wise Ben-Sirach advised that we should not consult with a Woman concerning her of whom she is jealous neither with a coward in matters of War nor with a Merchant concerning Exchange and some other instances he gives of interested persons to whom he would not have us hearken in any matter of Counsel For where-ever the interest is secular or vicious there the â—iass is not on the side of Truth or Reason because these are seldom serv'd by profit and low regards But to consult with a Friend in the matters of Friendship is like consulting with a Spiritual person in Religion they who understand the secrets of Religion or the Interior beauties of Friendship are the fittest to give answers in all inquiries concerning the respective subjects because Reason and Experience are on the side of interest and that which in Friendship is most pleasing and most useful is also most reasonable and most true and a Friends fairest interest is the best Measure of the Conducting Friendships and therefore you who are so eminent in Friendships could also have given the best answer to your own inquiries and you could have trusted your own Reason because it is not only greatly instructed by the direct notices of things but also by great experience in the matter of which you now inquire But because I will not use any thing that shall look like an excuse I will rather give you such an account which you can easily reprove than by declining your commands seem more safe in my prudence than open and communicative in my Friendship to you You first inquire How far a Dear and a perfect Friendship is authoriz'd by the principles of Christianity To this I answer That the word Friendship in the sence we commonly mean by it is not so much as named in the New Testament and our Religion takes no notice of it You think it strange but read on before you spend so much as the beginning of a passion or a wonder upon it There is mention of Friendship with the world and it is said to be enmity with God but the word is no where else named or to any other purpose in
explained 777 n. 26. Chap. 8.7 explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 7.22 23. explained 781 n. 31. Chap. 5.10 explained 818 n. 77. Rosary What it is 328. S. Sabbath THE observation of the Lord's day relieth not upon Tradition 428. The Jewish and Christian Sabbath were for many years in the Christian Church kept together 428. Sacraments The Sacraments as the Romanists teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. The Romanists cannot agree about the definition of a Sacrament 404. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to the Sacraments themselves 429. The Church of God used of old to deny the Sacrament to no dying penitent that desired it 696. Of Confession to a Priest in preparation to the Sacrament 857. Saints The Romanists teach and practise the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same confidence and in the same style as they do to God ibid. They do not onely pray to Saints to pray for them but they relie upon their merits 330. They have a Saint for every malady 330. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. Of the Invocation of Saints 467. Salvation The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to Salvation 436. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Church of Rome imposeth Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. Of the Salvation of unbaptized Infants that are born of Christian parents 471. 1. Book of Samuel Chap. 2. v. 25. explained 812 813 n. 51. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it meaneth in the style of the New Testament 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 767 781. Satisfaction One may according to the Roman doctrine satisfie for another man's sin 322 c. 2. § 6. The use of that word in Classical Authours 844 845 n. 72. It was the same with Confession 845 n. 72. What it signified in the sense of the Ancients 844 and 832 n. 34. The Ancients did not believe Satisfaction simply necessary to the procuring pardon from God 847. Schism Photius was the first Authour of the Schism between the Greek and Latin Church 109 § 33. What Schism is 149 § 46. The whole stress of Religion Schismaticks commonly place in their own distinguishing Article 459. Scripture To make new Articles of Faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments and not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Scripture proves not it self to be God's Word 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best Argument to prove the Scripture to be the Word of God therefore it is a better Principle 354. The Romanists hold the Scripture for no Infallible Rule 381. Whether the Scripture be a sufficient Rule 405 406 407. In what case the Scripture can give testimony concerning it self 406. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. To believe that the Scripture contains not all things necessary to Salvation is a fountain of most Errours and Heresies 409. The doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. Things necessary to Salvation are in the Scripture easie and plain 418. Scripture is the best Interpreter of Scripture 419. Tradition is necessary because Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Nicene Council were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition give great advantage to the Socinians 425. That the Doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the Doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture 425 426. The validity of the Baptism of Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. What Articles the Scripture proposeth as necessary to Salvation 436 437. The Romanists teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and a new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome as they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the Question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between Authority quoad nos and in se it salves not the difficulty 451. The Romanists reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Eckius his pitiful Argument to prove the Authority of the Church to be above the Scriptures ibid. Variety of Readings in it 967. n. 4. As much difference in expounding it 967 n. 5. Of the several ways taken to expound it 971 972 973. Of expounding it by Analogy of Faith 973 974 n. 4. Saint Basil's testimony for Scripture against Tradition which Perron endeavours to elude vindicated 982 983. Nothing of Auricular Confession in Scripture 479. The manner of it is to include the Consequents in the Antecedent 679 n. 52. Secular Whether this Power can give Prohibitions against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take Secular Imployment 157 § 49. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after Secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it in gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed Appeals in secular affairs from secular Tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. Saint Ambrose was Bishop and Prefect of Milain at the same time 161 § 49. Saint Austin's condition was somewhat like at Hippo 161. § 49. Bishops used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop or his Clerks might doe any office of Piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. If a Secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishops that are under him 341. Sense If the doctrine of Transubstantiation be true then the truth of Christian Religion that relies upon evidence of sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument and our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and our Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses be not in fit circumstances to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. The Touch the most certain of the Senses ibid. Signat That word as also Consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifies Baptismal Unction 110 § 33. Vid. 20. b. Sin Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. The Papists teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. Of the distinction of sins mortal and venial 329 c.
be the best way of proving the immortality of the Soul 357. Aristotle believed the Soul of man to be divine and not of the body 718 n. 41. There is no difference between the inferiour and superiour faculties of the Soul 728 n. 68. and 825 n. 19. The frailty of man's Soul 734 n. 83. Spirit Whether the ordinary gifts of the Spirit be immediate infusions of faculties and abilities or an improvement of our natural powers and means 4 n. 15. ad 34. How the Holy Spirit did inspire the Apostles and Writers of the New Testament as to the very words 8 n. 32. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. What a Spirit is as to nature 236 § 11. How a Spirit is in place 236 § 11. The Holy Spirit perfects our Redemption 1. b. The Spirit of God 1. b. The frailty of the spirit of man 735 n. 83. The rule of the Spirit in us 782. To have received the Spirit is not an inseparable propriety of the regenerate 786. What the Spirit of God doth in us 787. The regenerate man hath not onely received the Spirit of God but is wholly led by him 788. Sublapsarians Their Doctrine in five Propositions 872. It is not much better then the Supralapsarian 873. Against this way 886 n. 8. Substance What a Substance is 236 § 11. Aquinas says that the Body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a Body but a Substance this Notion considered 238 § 11. Succession Of the succession of Bishops 402 403. Supererogation How it and Christian perfection differ 590 591 n. 16 17. What it is 786. Superlative This is usually exprest by a synonymal word by an Hebraism 909. Supralapsarians Their Doctrine 871. T. Tears A Man by them must not judge of his Repentance nor by any other one way of expression 850 n. 86. Temptation Every temptation to sin if overcome increases not the reward 661 n. 7. No man is tempted of God 737 n. 86. The violence of a temptation doth not in the whole excuse sin 743. Testament In a humane or Divine Testament figurative words may be admitted 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's aenigmatical Testament 210 § 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What they were 835 n. 44. Theodoret. His words about Transubstantiation considered 264 265 § 12. Theology The power of Reason in matters of Theology 230 231 § 11. It findeth a medium between Vertue and Vice 673. Thief on the Cross. Why his Repentance was accepted 681 n. 65. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What that word means 637 n 10. 1. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 4. v. 8. explained 860 n. 114. Chap. 5. v. 22. explained 808 n. 31. Chap. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 152 § 48. and 166 § 51. Chap. 3.15 16. the pillar and ground of truth explained 386 387. Chap. 1.5 6. explained 949 n. 8. 2. Epistle to Timothy Chap. 2. v. 4. explained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 162 § 49. Epistle to Titus Chap. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 explained 780 n. 30. Tradition Christ and his Apostles made use of Scripture for arguments not Tradition 353. An answer to that Objection Tradition is the best argument to prove the Scripture to be the word of God therefore it is a better Principle then that 354. Oral Tradition was useful to convey matter of fact onely not Doctrines 354 355 358. Oral Tradition a very uncertain means to convey down a Doctrine 356. The Romanists have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. The doctrine of the Scriptures sufficiency proved by Tradition 410. Some of the Fathers by Tradition mean Scripture 410 411 412. What Tradition is and what the word meaneth 420 § 3. When and in what case Tradition is an useful Topick 421. It is necessary in the Church because the Scripture could not be conveyed to us without it 424. The Questions that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. The Tradition urged by the Ancients was not oral 425. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. The doctrine of the Trinity relieth not upon Tradition but Scripture 425. That the doctrine of Infant-baptism relieth not upon Tradition onely but Scripture too 425 426. The validity of Baptism by Hereticks is not to be proved by Tradition without Scripture 426 427. The Procession of the Holy Ghost may be proved by Scripture without Tradition 427 428. The observation of the Lord's Day relieth not upon Tradition 428. Instances wherein oral Tradition has failed in conveyance 431. Saint Augustine's Rule to try Apostolical Traditions 432. Some Traditions said to be Apostolical have proceeded from the testimony of one man alone and he none of them 432. Of the means of proving a Tradition to be Apostolical 433. Of Vincentius Lirinensis his Rule to discern Apostolical Tradition 434. In the Question about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for Auricular Confession 490. Of what use Tradition is in expounding Scripture 976. It is no sufficient medium to end Controversies 976 sect 5. per tot It was pretended by the Arians and divers other hereticks as well as the Orthodox 977 n. 3. The report of Tradition was uncertain even in the Ages Apostolical 978 n. 4. Tradition could not be made use of to determine the Controversie about Easter between the Churches of the East and West because both sides pretended it 979 n. 7. What Tradition it was the Fathers used to appeal to 979 n. 8. Transubstantiation The arts by which the Romanists have managed this Article Ep. Ded. to Real Pres. 174. It is acknowledged by the Romanists that this doctrine cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. How many figurative terms there are in the words of Institution 211 212 § 6. If this doctrine be true then the truth of Christian Religion which relieth upon the evidence of Sense is questionable 223 224 § 10. The Papists Answer to that Argument with our Reply 224 § 10. Bellarmine's Answer and a Reply upon it 226 § 10. If the testimony of our Senses in fit circumstances be not to be relied on the Catholicks could not have confuted the Valentinians and Marcionites 227 § 10. Irenaeus mentions an Impostour that essayed to counterfeit Transubstantiation long before the Roman Church decreed it 228 § 10. The miraculous Apparitions that are brought to prove Transubstantiation are proved to be false by their own doctrine 229 § 10. Picus Mirandula offered to maintain in Rome this Thesis Paneitas potest suppositare corpus Domini 230 § 11. How many ways the words of Christ Hoc est corpus meum may be verified without Transubstantiation 230 231 § 11. The folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy