Disswasive from Popery The First Part. THE Introduction 285 Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive 286 Sect. 1. That our Religion is but that their Religion is not such is proved in general first from their challenging power of making new Articles and secondly from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory with some instances of their Innovating 286 2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles 290 3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences 291 4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory 294 5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation 297 6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion 30◠7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood 303 8. In requiring the adoration of Images 305 9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity 307 10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick 308 11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us that are direct impieties and certainly destroy good life 312 Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance 312 2. And Confession 315 3. Of Penances and Satisfactions 316 4 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences Contrition and Satisfaction 318 6. Satisfaction and habitual sins distinction of Mortal and Venial sins by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins and mistake in cases of Conscience 322 7. Their teaching now of late that a probable opinion for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient may in practice be safely followed 324 8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato 327 9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers 329 10. And of Exorcising possessed persons 333 11. Sacramentals such as Holy-water Paschal-wax Agnus Dei c. 336 12. The worship of Images is Idolatry and to worship the Host. 337 13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter 337 Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general and Monarchy in particular 340 Sect. 1. As equivocation mental reservation taught and defended by them c. 340 Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks dispensing with Oaths Dissolving the bonds of duty 341 They teach the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God and to dissolve contracts 2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority as to their Estates and Persons even in matters of Theft Murder and Treason c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession 343 3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope who can as they teach depose and excommunicate Kings and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings The Second Part of the Disswasive THe Introduction containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing 351 Lib. I. Sect. 1. Of the Church that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith Of Councils and their authority the Canon Law and the great contrariety in it Of the Pope of the notes of the Church 381 2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition 405 3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick as of the Trinity Paedo-Baptism Baptism by Hereticks and the Lords day 420 4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 436 5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine 446 First They do it and pretend to a power of doing it Secondly That it agrees with their interest so to do 452 6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii 454 First That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors Secondly That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works Thirdly They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too 7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity 459 8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 466 9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men 471 10. Of the Seal of Confession the First Instance 473 11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God 477 First For which there is no ground in holy Scripture 479 Secondly Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church 491 Lib. II. Sect. 1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages 495 2. Of Purgatory The testimonies of Roffensis Polyd. Virgil c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated 500 It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead 501 The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory 502 And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church 512 3. Of Transubstantiation wherein the authorities out of Scotus Odo Cameracensis Roffensis Biel Alph. à Castro Pet. Lombard Durandus Justine Martyr Eusebius S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation but brake up abruptly without making any Canons at all 516 4. Of the Half-Communion 528 Of the Decree of the Council of Constance 528. The authority of S. Ambrose 530. and S. Cyprian 531 5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue 532 S. Basils authority S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas Lyra. 6. Of the Worship of Images 535 1o. The Quotations vindicated 536. of S. Cyril Chrysostom Epiphanius Austin Council of Eliberis Nicene II. Francfort First The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540 Secondly They commanded that it should not be called a General Council ibid. Thirdly The acts of it are in the Capitular of the Emperor written in the time of the Synod 541 Of Tertullian 541. Clemens Alexandrinus 542. Origen 543. 2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered as of S. Basil S. Athanasius 544. S. Chrysostom 545. 3o. The truth confirmed 545 First Image-worship came from Simon Magus ibid. Secondly Heathens spake against it 546 Thirdly Christians did abominate it ibid. Fourthly The Heathens never charged the Christians with it ibid. Fifthly The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry 547 Sixthly The Second Commandment is against it ibid.
matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same Faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our Faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new Articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this Faith intirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we
does implicitely believe all the Articles contained in it and then it is better the implication should still continue than that by any explication which is simply unnecessary the Church should be troubled with questions and uncertain determinations and factions enkindled and animosities set on foot and mens souls endangered who before were secured by the explicite belief of all that the Apostles required as necessary which belief also did secure them from all the rest because it implyed the belief of whatsoever was virtually in the first Articles if such belief should by chance be necessary 41. The summe of this Discourse is this if we take an estimate of the nature of Faith from the dictates and Promises Evangelical and from the Practice Apostolical the nature of Faith and its integrity consists in such propositions which make the foundation of hope and charity that which is sufficient to make us to doe honour to Christ and to obey him and to encourage us in both and this is compleated in the Apostles Creed And since contraries are of the same extent heresy is to be judged by its proportion and analogie to Faith and that is heresy only which is against Faith Now because Faith is not only a precept of Doctrines but of manners and holy life whatsoever is either opposite to an Article of Creed or teaches ill life that 's heresy but all those propositions which are extrinsecal to these two considerations be they true or be they false make not heresy nor the man an Heretick and therefore however he may be an erring person yet he is to be used accordingly pittied and instructed not condemned or Excommunicated And this is the result of the first ground the consideration of the nature of Faith and heresy SECT III. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary not literally determined 1. GOD who disposes of all things sweetly and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons had made those only necessary which he had taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required the explicite belief And therefore all the Articles of Faith are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture and the Gospel is not hid nisi pereuntibus saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Damascen and that so manifestly that no man can be ignorant of the foundation of Faith without his own apparent fault And this is acknowledged by all wise and good men and is evident besides the reasonableness of the thing in the testimonies of Saints Austin Hierom Chrysostome Fulgentius Hugo de Sancto Victore Thedoret Lactantius Theophilus Antiochenus Aquinas and the later School-men And God hath done more for many things which are only profitable are also set down so plainly that as S. Austin says nemo inde haurire non possit si modò ad hauriendum devotè ac piè accedat ubi supra de util cred c. 6. but of such things there is no Question commenced in Christendome and if there were it cannot but be a crime and humane interest that are the Authors of such disputes and therefore these cannot be simple errours but always heresies because the principle of them is a personal sin 2. But besides these things which are so plainly set down some for doctrine as Saint Paul says that is for Articles and foundation of Faith some for instruction some for reproof some for comfort that is in matters practical and speculative of several tempers and constitutions there are innumerable places containing in them great mysteries but yet either so enwrapped with a cloud or so darkned with umbrages or heightened with expressions or so covered with allegories and garments of Rhetorick so profound in the matter or so altered or made intricate in the manner in the cloathing and in the dressing that God may seem to have left them as tryals of our industry and Arguments of our imperfections and incentives to the longings after Heaven and the clearest revelations of eternity and as occasions and opportunities of our mutual charity and toleration to each other and humility in our selves rather than the repositories of Faith and furniture of Creeds and Articles of belief 3. For wherever the word of God is kept whether in Scripture alone or also in Tradition he that considers that the meaning of the one and the truth or certainty of the other are things of great Question will see a necessity in these things which are the subject matter of most of the Questions of Christendome that men should hope to be excused by an implicite faith in God Almighty For when there are in the Explications of Scripture so many Commentaries so many sences and Interpretations so many Volumes in all Ages and all like mens faces exactly none like another either this difference and inconvenience is absolutely no fault at all or if it be it is excusable by a mind prepared to consent in that truth which God intended And this I call an implicite Faith in God which is certainly of as great excellency as an implicite Faith in any man or company of men Because they who do require an implicite Faith in the Church for Articles less necessary and excuse the want of explicite Faith by the implicite do require an implicite Faith in the Church because they believe that God hath required of them to have a mind prepared to believe whatever the Church says which because it is a proposition of no absolute certainty whosoever does in readiness of mind believe all that God spake does also believe that sufficiently if it be fitting to be believed that is if it be true and if God hath said so for he hath the same obedience of understanding in this as in the other But because it is not so certain God hath tied him in all things to believe that which is called the Church and that it is certain we must believe God in all things and yet neither know all that either God hath revealed or the Church taught it is better to take the certain than the uncertain to believe God rather than men especially since if God hath bound us to believe men our absolute submission to God does involve that and there is no inconvenience in the world this way but that we implicitely believe one Article more viz. the Churches Authority or infallibility which may well be pardoned because it secures our belief of all the rest and we are sure if we believe all that God said explicitely or implicitely we also believe the Church implicitely in case we are bound to it but we are not certain that if we believe any company of men whom we call the Church that we therefore obey God and believe what he hath said But however if this will not help us there is no help for us but good fortune or absolute predestination for by choice and industry no man can
unreasonableness I will not say but the same liberty in expounding Scripture or if it be not licence taken but that the Scripture it self is so full and redundant in sences quite contrary what man soever or what company of men soever shall use this principle will certainly find such rare productions from several places that either the unreasonableness of the thing will discover the errour of the proceeding or else there will be a necessity of permitting a great liberty of judgment where is so infinite variety without limit or mark of necessary determination If the first then because an errour is so obvious and ready to our selves it will be great imprudence or tyranny to be hasty in judging others but if the latter it is it that I contend for for it is most unreasonable when either the thing it self ministers variety or that we take licence to our selves in variety of interpretations or proclaim to all the world our great weakness by our actually being deceived that we should either prescribe to others magisterially when we are in errour or limit their understandings when the thing it self affords liberty and variety SECT IV. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 1. THese considerations are taken from the nature of Scripture it self but then if we consider that we have no certain ways of determining places of difficulty and question infallibly and certainly but that we must hope to be saved in the belief of things plain necessary and fundamental and our pious endeavour to find out Gods meaning in such places which he hath left under a cloud for other great ends reserved to his own knowledge we shall see a very great necessity in allowing a liberty in Prophesying without prescribing authoritatively to other mens consciences and becoming Lords and Masters of their Faith Now the means of expounding Scripture are either external or internal For the external as Church Authority Tradition Fathers Councils and Decrees of Bishops they are of a distinct consideration and follow after in their order But here we will first consider the invalidity and uncertainty of all those means of expounding Scripture which are more proper and internal to the nature of the thing The great Masters of Commentaries some whereof have undertaken to know all mysteries have propounded many ways to expound Scripture which indeed are excellent helps but not infallible assistances both because themselves are but moral instruments which force not truth ex abscondito as also because they are not infallibly used and applyed 1. Sometime the sence is drawn forth by the context and connexion of parts It is well when it can be so But when there is two or three antecedents and subjects spoken of what man or what rule shall ascertain me that I make my reference true by drawing the relation to such an antecedent to which I have a mind to apply it another hath not For in a contexture where one part does not always depend upon another where things of differing natures intervene and interrupt the first intentions there it is not always very probable to expound Scripture and take its meaning by its proportion to the neighbouring words But who desires satisfaction in this may read the observation verified in S. Gregory's Morals upon Job lib. 5. c. 22. and the instances he there brings are excellent proof that this way of Interpretation does not warrant any man to impose his Expositions upon the belief and understanding of other men too confidently and magisterially 2. Secondly Another great pretence or medium is the conference of places which Illyricus calls ingens remedium foelicissimam expositionem sanctae scripturae and indeed so it is if well and temperately used but then we are beholding to them that do so for there is no rule that can constrain them to it for comparing of places is of so indefinite capacity that if there be ambiguity of words variety of sence alteration of circumstances or difference of stile amongst Divine Writers then there is nothing that may be more abused by wilful people or may more easily deceive the unwary or that may more amuse the most intelligent Observer The Anabaptists take advantage enough in this proceeding and indeed so may any one that list and when we pretend against them the necessity of baptizing all by authority of nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ spiritu they have a parallel for it and tell us that Christ will baptize us with the holy Ghost and with fire and that one place expounds the other and because by fire is not meant an Element or any thing that is natural but an Allegory and figurative expression of the same thing so also by water may be meant the figure signifying the effect or manner of operation of the holy Spirit Fire in one place and water in the other do but represent to us that Christs baptism is nothing else but the cleansing and purifying us by the holy Ghost But that which I here note as of greatest concernment and which in all reason ought to be an utter overthrow to this topick 〈◊〉 an universal abuse of it among those that use it most and when two places seem to have the same expression or if a word have a double signification because in this place it may have such a sence therefore it must because in one of the places the sence is to their purpose they conclude that therefore it must be so in the other too An instance I give in the great Question between the Socinians and the Catholicks If any place be urged in which our blessed Saviour is called God they shew you two or three where the word â—od is taken in a depressed sence for a quasi Deus as when God said to Moses Constitui te Deum Pharaonis and hence they argue because I can shew the word is used for a Deus factus therefore no argument is sufficient to prove Christ to be Deus verus from the appellative of Deus And might not another argue to the exact contrary and as well urge that Moses is Deus verus because in some places the word Deus is used pro Deo aeterno Both ways the Argument concludes impiously and unreasonably It is a fallacy à posse ad esse affirmativè because breaking of bread is sometimes used for an Eucharistical manducation in Scripture therefore I shall not from any testimony of Scripture affirming the first Christians to have broken bread together conclude that they lived hospitably and in common society Because it may possibly be eluded therefore it does not signifie any thing And this is the great way of answering all the Arguments that can be brought against any thing that any man hath a mind to defend and any man that reads any controversies of any side shall find as many instances of this vanity almost as he finds arguments from Scripture this fault was of old noted by S. Austin for then they had got the trick and
would bring in after Ages to the Authority of a competent judge or witness say the same thing for they plainly confess that the first Ages spake little or nothing to the present Question or at least nothing to their sence of them for therefore they call in aid from the following Ages and make them suppletory and auxiliary to their designs and therefore there are no Traditions to our purposes And they who would willingly have it otherwise yet have taken no course it should be otherwise for they when they had opportunity in the Councils of the last Ages to determine what they had a mind to yet they never named the number nor expressed the particular Traditions which they would fain have the world believe to be Apostolical But they have kept the bridle in their own hands and made a reserve of their own power that if need be they may make new pretensions or not be put to it to justifie the old by the engagement of a conciliary declaration 11. Lastly We are acquitted by the testimony of the Primitive Fathers from any other necessity of believing than of such Articles as are recorded in Scripture And this is done by them whose Authority is pretended the greatest Argument for Tradition as appears largely in Irenaeus who disputes professedly for the sufficiency of Scripture against certain Hereticks who affirm some necessary truths not to be written It was an excellent saying of S. Basil and will never be wip'd out with all the eloquence of Perron in his Serm. de fide Manifestus est fidei lapsus liquidum superbiae viâ—ium vel respuere aliquid eorum quae Scriptura habet vel inducere quicquam quod scriptum non est And it is but a poor device to say that every particular Tradition is consigned in Scripture by those places which give Authority to Tradition and so the introducing of Tradition is not a super-inducing any thing over or besides Scripture because Tradition is like a Messenger and the Scripture is like his Letters of Credence and therefore Authorizes whatsoever Tradition speaketh For supposing Scripture does consign the Authority of Tradition which it might do before all the whole Instrument of Scripture it self was consigned and then afterwards there might be no need of Tradition yet supposing it it will follow that all those Traditions which are truly prime and Apostolical are to be entertained according to the intention of the Deliverers which indeed is so reasonable of it self that we need not Scripture to perswade us to it it self is authentick as Scripture is if it derives from the same fountain and a word is never the more the Word of God for being written nor the less for not being written but it will not follow that whatsoever is pretended to be Tradition is so neither is the credit of the particular instances consigned in Scripture dolosus versatur in generalibus but that this craft is too palpable And if a general and indefinite consignation of Tradition be sufficient to warrant every particular that pretends to be Tradition then S. Basil had spoken to no purpose by saying it is Pride and Apostasie from the Faith to bring in what is not written For if either any man brings in what is written or what he says is delivered then the first being express Scripture and the second being consigned in Scripture no man can be charged with superinducing what is not written he hath his answer ready And then these are zealous words absolutely to no purpose but if such general consignation does not warrant every thing that pretends to Tradition but only such as are truly proved to be Apostolical then Scripture is useless as to this particular for such Tradition gives testimony to Scripture and therefore is of it self first and more credible for it is credible of it self and therefore unless Saint Basil thought that all the will of God in matters of Faith and Doctrine were written I see not what end nor what sence he could have in these words For no man in the World except Enthusiasts and mad-men ever obtruded a Doctrine upon the Church but he pretended Scripture for it or Tradition and therefore no man could be pressed by these words no man confuted no man instructed no not Enthusiasts or Montanists For suppose either of them should say that since in Scripture the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Church for ever to teach whatever they pretend the Spirit in any Age hath taught them is not to super-induce any thing beyond what is written because the truth of the Spirit his veracity and his perpetual teaching being promised and attested in Scripture Scripture hath just so consigned all such Revelations as Perron saith it hath all such Traditions But I will trouble my self no more with Arguments from any humane Authorities but he that is surprized with the belief of such Authorities and will but consider the very many testimonies of Antiquity to this purpose as of Constantine St. Hierom St. Austin St. Athanasius St. Hilary St. Epiphanius and divers others all speaking words to the same sence with that saying of St. Paul Nemo sentiat super quod scriptum est will see that there is reason that since no man is materially a Heretick but he that errs in a point of Faith and all Faith is sufficiently recorded in Scripture the judgment of Faith and Heresie is to be derived from thence and no man is to be condemned for dissenting in an Article for whose probation Tradition only is pretended only according to the degree of its evidence let every one determine himself but of this evidence we must not judge for others for unless it be in things of Faith and absolute certainties evidence is a word of relation and so supposes two terms the object and the faculty and it is an imperfect speech to say a thing is evident in it self unless we speak of first principles or clearest revelations for that may be evident to one that is not so to another by reason of the pregnancy of some apprehensions and the immaturity of others This discourse hath its intention in Traditions Doctrinal and Ritual that is such Traditions which propose Articles new in materiâ but now if Scripture be the repository of all Divine Truths sufficient for us Tradition must be considered as its instrument to convey its great mysteriousness to our understandings it is said there are traditive Interpretations as well as traditive propositions but these have not much distinct consideration in them both because their uncertainty is as great as the other upon the former considerations as also because in very deed there are no such things as traditive Interpretations universal For as for particulars they signifie no more but that they are not sufficient determinations of Questions Theological therefore because they are particular contingent and of infinite variety and they are no more Argument than the
particular authority of these men whose Commentaries they are and therefore must be considered with them 12. The summe is this Since the Fathers who are the best witnesses of Traditions yet were infinitely deceived in their account since sometimes they guest at them and conjectured by way of Rule and Discourse and not of their knowledge not by evidence of the thing since many are called Traditions which were not so many are uncertain whether they were or no yet confidently pretended and this uncertainty which at first was great enough is increased by infinite causes and accidents in the succession of 1600 years since the Church hath been either so careless or so abused that she could not or would not preserve Traditions with carefulness and truth since it was ordinary for the old Writers to set out their own fancies and the Rites of their Church which had been Ancient under the specious Title of Apostolical Traditions since some Traditions rely but upon single Testimony at first and yet descending upon others come to be attested by many whose Testimony though conjunct yet in value is but single because it relies upon the first single Relator and so can have no greater authority or certainty than they derive from the single person since the first Ages who were most competent to consign Tradition yet did consign such Traditions as be of a nature wholly discrepant from the present Questions and speak nothing at all or very imperfectly to our purposes and the following ages are no fit witnesses of that which was not transmitted to them because they could not know it at all but by such transmission and prior consignation since what at first was a Tradition came afterwards to be written and so ceased its being a Tradition yet the credit of Traditions commenced upon the certainty and reputation of those truths first delivered by word afterward consigned by writing since what was certainly Tradition Apostolical as many Rituals were are rejected by the Church in several ages and are gone out into a desuetude and lastly since beside the no necessity of Traditions there being abundantly enough in Scripture there are many things called Traditions by the Fathers which they themselves either proved by no Authors or by Apocryphal and spurious and Heretical the matter of Tradition will in very much be so uncertain so false so suspicious so contradictory so improbable so unproved that if a Question be contested and be offered to be proved only by Tradition it will be very hard to impose such a proposition to the belief of all men with an imperiousness or resolved determination but it will be necessary men should preserve the liberty of believing and prophecying and not part with it upon a worse merchandise and exchange than Esau made for his birthright SECT VI. Of the uncertainty and insufficiency of Councils Ecclesiastical to the same purpose 1. BUT since we are all this while in uncertainty it is necessary that we should address our selves somewhere where we may rest the soal of our foot And Nature Scripture and Experience teach the World in matters of Question to submit to some final sentence For it is not reason that controversies should continue till the erring person shall be willing to condemn himself and the Spirit of God hath directed us by that great precedent at Jerusalem to address our selves to the Church that in a plenary Council and Assembly she may Synodically determine Controversies So that if a General Council have determined a Question or expounded Scripture we may no more disbelieve the Decree than the Spirit of God himself who speaks in them And indeed if all Assemblies of Bishops were like that first and all Bishops were of the same spirit of which the Apostles were I should obey their Decree with the same Religion as I do them whose Preface was Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis and I doubt not but our blessed Saviour intended that the Assemblies of the Church should be Judges of the Controversies and guides of our perswasions in matters of difficulty But he also intended they should proceed according to his will which he had revealed and those precedents which he had made authentick by the immediate assistance of his holy Spirit He hath done his part but we do not do ours And if any private person in the simplicity and purity of his soul desires to find out a truth of which he is in search and inquisition if he prays for wisdom we have a promise he shall be heard and answered liberally and therefore much more when the representatives of the Catholick Church do meet because every person there hath in individuo a title to the promise and another title as he is a governour and a guide of souls and all of them together have another title in their united capacity especially if in that union they pray and proceed with simplicity and purity so that there is no disputing against the pretence and promises and authority of General Councils For if any one man can hope to be guided by Gods Spirit in the search the pious and impartial and unprejudicate search of truth then much more may a General Council If no private man can hope for it then truth is not necessary to be found nor we are not obliged to search for it or else we are saved by chance But if private men can by vertue of a promise upon certain conditions be assured of finding out sufficient truth much more shall a General Council So that I consider thus There are many promises pretended to belong to General Assemblies in the Church but I know not any ground nor any pretence that they shall be absolutely assisted without any condition on their own parts and whether they will or no Faith is a vertue as well as Charity and therefore consists in liberty and choice and hath nothing in it of necessity There is no Question but that they are obliged to proceed according to some rule for they expect no assistance by way of Enthusiasme if they should I know no warrant for that neither did any General Council ever offer a Decree which they did not think sufficiently proved by Scripture Reason or Tradition as appears in the Acts of the Councils now then if they be tied to conditions it is their duty to observe them but whether it be certain that they will observe them that they will do all their duty that they will not sin even in this particular in the neglect of their duty that 's the consideration So that if any man questions the Title and Authority of General Councils and whether or no great promises appertain to them I suppose him to be much mistaken but he also that thinks all of them have proceeded according to rule and reason and that none of them were deceived because possibly they might have been truly directed is a stranger to the History of the Church and to the perpetual instances and experiments of
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
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.
desire to do natural or moral good things but even spiritual 784 4o. he may leave many sins which he is commanded to forsake 785 5o. he may leave some sins not only for temporal interest but out of fear of God and regard to his Law ibid. 6o. he may besides abstinence from evil do many good things 786 7 o he may have received the Spirit of God and yet be in a state of distance from God ibid. 6. The character of the unregenerate state or person n. 42.787 7. What are properly and truly sins of infirmity and how far they can consist with the regenerate estate 789 8. Practical advices to be added to the foregoing considerations 795. n. 65. Chap. IX Of the effect of Repentance viz. remission of Sins 800 Sect. 1. There is no sin but with Repentance may be pardoned ibid. 2. Of pardon of sins committed after baptism 802 3. Of the difficulty of obtaining pardon The doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 803 4. Of the sin against the H. Ghost and in what sence it may be unpardonable 808 5. What sin is spoken of by our Lord Matth. 12.32 and that final impenitence is not it 810 6. The former doctrines reduced to practice 815 Chap. X. Of Ecclesiastical Penance or the fruits of Repentance 820 Sect. 1. What the fruits of Repentance are in general ibid. 2. Of Contrition or godly sorrow the reasons measures and constitution of it 821 3. Of the nature and differences of Attrition and Contrition 828 4. Of Confession 830 1o. Confession is necessary to Repentance ibid. 2o. It is due only to God 831 3o. In the Primitive Church there was no judicial absolution used in their Liturgies n. 54.838 4o. The judicial absolution of a Priest does effect no material change in the Penitent as to giving of pardon 841. n. 60 5. Attrition or imperfect Repentance though with absolution is not sufficient 842 6. Of Penance or satisfactions 844. 1o. sorrow and mourning 2o. Corporal austerities 3o. Prayers 847. 4o. Alms 848. 5o. forgiving injuries 6 o restitution 849 7. The former doctrine reduced to practice 850 8. The practice of Confession 854 9. The practice of Penances and corporal austerities 858 A Discourse in Vindication of Gods Attributes of Goodness and Justice in the matter of Original Sin against the Calvinists way of understanding it 1o. THe truth of the Article with the errors and mistakes about it 869 2o. Arguments to prove the truth 872 3o. Objections answered 881 4o. An Explication of Rom. 5.12 ad 19. 887 An Answer to the Bishop of Rochesters First Letter written concerning the Sixth Chapter of Original Sin in the Discourse of Repentance 895 The Bishop of Rochesters Second Letter upon the same subject 907 An Answer to the Second Letter from the Bishop of Rochester 909 The Liberty of Prophesying EPist Dedicatory Introduction Sect. 1. Of the nature of Faith and that the duty of it is compleated in believing the Articles of the Apostles Creed 941 2. Of Heresie its nature and measures That it is to be accounted according to the stricter capacity of the Christian Faith and not in opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 947 3. Of the difficulty and uncertainty of arguments from Scripture in Questions not simply necessary nor literally determined 965 4. Of the difficulty of expounding Scripture 971 5. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to expound Scripture or determine questions 976 6. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Councils Ecclesiastical to expound Scripture or determine questions 984 7. Of the fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 995 8. How unable the Fathers or Writers Ecclesiastical are to determine our questions with certainty and truth 1007 9. How incompetent the Church in its diffusive capacity is to be Judge of controversies and how impertinent that pretence of the Spirit is 1011 10. Of the authority of reason and that it proceeding on the best grounds is the best Judge 1013 11. Of some causes of error in the exercise of reason which are in themselves inculpable 1016 12. How innocent error of mere opinion is in a pious person 1022 13. Of the deportment to be used toward persons disagreeing and reasons why they are not to be punished with death 1025 14. Of the practice of Christian Churches toward persons disagreeing and when persecution first came in use 1031 15. How far the Church or Governours may act to the restraining false or differing opinions 1034 16. Whether it be lawful for a Prince to give toleration to several Religions 1036 17. Of complying with disagreeing persons or weak Consciences in general 1038 18. A particular instance in the opinion of the Anabaptists to shew that there is so much reason on both sides of the Question that a pious person mistaking may be innocent in his error 1040 1o. The arguments usually alledged for baptizing Infants n. 3. ad 12.1041 1042 2o. How much the Anabaptists have to say in opposition to those arguments and to justifie their own tenent n. 12. ad 34.1043 ad 1051 3o. A reply to the arguments of the Anabaptists by the Author since the first Edition wherein the lawfulness of the Churches practice is established n. 34. ad fin Sect. 1051. ad 1068 19. That there ought not to be any toleration of doctrines inconsistent with piety or the publick good 1069 20. How far the Religion of the Church of Rome may be tolerated 1070 21. Of the duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1076 22. That particular men may communicate with Churches of different perswasions and how far they may do it 1077 The Discourse of Confirmation INtroduction Sect. 1. Of the Divine Original Warranty and Institution of the Rite of Confirmation 3 2. The Rite of Confirmation is a perpetual and never-ceasing Ministery 12 3. That Confirmation which by laying on of Hands gives the H. Spirit was actually continued and practised by all succeeding Ages of the Primitive Church 15 4. The Bishops were always and are still the only Ministers of Confirmation 18 5. The whole procedure of Confirmation is by prayer and laying on of Hands 22 6. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy reception and due ministery of Confirmation 24 7. Of preparation to Confirmation and the circumstances of receiving it 28 A Discourse of Friendship 1. HOw far a perfect Friendship is authorized by the principles of Christianity 35 2. What are the requisites of Friendship 38 3. What are the lawful expressions and acts of Friendship 42 4. Whether a Friend may be dearer than a Husband or Wife 47 5. What are the duties of Friendship 49 6. Ten Rules to be observed in the conduct of Friendship 50 Five Letters about change of Religion 53 THE AUTHORS PREFACE TO THE APOLOGY FOR AUTHORIZED and SET FORMS OF LITURGY WHEN Judges were instead of Kings and Hophni and Phinehas were among the Priests every
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. John although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made James sirnamed the Just Bishop of Jerusalem and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. James also his Predecessor The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum c. Just as Anacletus before S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter James and Iohn were his Ordainers But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records S. Cyrill of Jerusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solum sed etiam Apostolis Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and again he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocess S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus There are many more testimonies to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Council of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself If by Ordinatus he means designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turn for the present But either in one sence or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó S. James had first the Episcopal chair for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we add what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it follows from the premisses and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have been But that this also was not a temporary business and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium Iacobi traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first Iames and next Simeon Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est SECT XIV S. Timothy at Ephesus THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture For S. Paul imposed hands on him that 's certain Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum By the laying on of my hands That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him First He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publick necessities of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional And when it was his cure was supplied by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife c. Thirdly S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young For a Bishop must be no striker But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula
and before the day of Judgment any souls are translated into a state of bliss out of a state of pain that is that from Purgatory they go to heaven before the day of Judgment He that can shew this will teach me what I have not yet learned but he that cannot shew it must not pretend that the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory was ever known to the Ancient Fathers of the Church SECT III. Of Transubstantiation THE purpose of the Dissuasive was to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be new neither Catholick nor Apostolick In order to which I thought nothing more likely to perswade or dissuade than the testimonies of the parties against themselves And although I have many other inducements as will appear in the sequel yet by so earnestly contending to invalidate the truth of the quotations the Adversaries do confess by implication if these sayings be as is pretended then I have evinc'd my main point viz. that the Roman doctrines as differing from us are novelties and no parts of the Catholick faith Thus therefore the Author of the letter begins He quotes Scotus as declaring the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible which he saith not To the same purpose he quotes Ocham but I can find no such thing in him To the same purpose he quotes Roffensis but he hath no such thing But in order to the verification of what I said I desire it be first observ'd what I did say for I did not deliver it so crudely as this Gentleman sets it down For 1. These words the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible are not the words of all them before nam'd they are the sence of them all but the words but of one or two of them 2. When I say that some of the Roman Writers say that Transubstantiation is not express'd in the Scripture I mean and so I said plainly as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi 〈◊〉 pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canâ—ne Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expresly taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for Ocham is not the man I mean however the Printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the Printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more publick name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Now if Roffensis have the same thing too this Author of the Letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fierâ— carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of hereticks but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretick by Scripture alone or reasons alone And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies sed adeo tamen certa in â—ide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the Article wholly relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape for E. W. talks of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis sit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kind Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so
Ages in which as they in all probability did differ from the apprehensions of the former Centuries so it is certain there were differing learnings other fancies divers representments and judgments of men depending upon circumstances which the first Ages knew and the following Ages did not and therefore the Catalogues were drawn with some truth but less certainty as appears in their differing about the Authors of some heresies several opinions imputed to the same and some put in the roll of Hereticks by one which the other left out which to me is an Argument that the Collectors were determined not by the sence and sentence of the three first Ages but by themselves and some circumstances about them which to reckon for Hereticks which not And that they themselves were the prime Judges or perhaps some in their own Age together with them but there was not any sufficient external judicatory competent to declare heresy that by any publick or sufficient sentence or acts of Court had furnished them with warrant for their Catalogues And therefore they are no Argument sufficient that the first Ages of the Church which certainly were the best did much recede from that which I shewed to be the sence of the Scripture and the practice of the Apostles they all contented themselves with the Apostles Creed as the rule of the Faith and therefore were not forward to judge of heresy but by analogie to their rule of Faith And those Catalogues made after these Ages are not sufficient Arguments that they did otherwise but rather of the weakness of some persons or of the spirit and genius of the Age in which the Compilers lived in which the device of calling all differing opinions by the name of heresies might grow to be a design to serve ends and to promote interests as often as an act of zeal and just indignation against evil persons destroyers of the Faith and corrupters of manners 22. For what ever private mens opinions were yet till the Nicene Council the rule of Faith was intire in the Apostles Creed and provided they retained that easily they broke not the unity of Faith however differing opinions might possibly commence in such things in which a liberty were better suffered than prohibited with a breach of charity And this appears exactly in the Question between S. Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen Bishop of Rome in which one instance it is easie to see what was lawful and safe for a wise and good man and yet how others began even then to be abused by that temptation which since hath invaded all Christendome S. Cyprian rebaptized Hereticks and thought he was bound so to doe calls a Synod in Africk as being Metropolitan and confirms his opinion by the consent of his Suffragans and Brethren but still with so much modesty that if any man was of another opinion he judged him not but gave him that liberty that he desired himself Stephen Bishop of Rome grows angry Excommunicates the Bishops of Asia and Africa that in divers Synods had consented to rebaptization and without peace and without charity condemns them for Hereticks Indeed here was the rarest mixture and conjunction of unlikelihoods that I have observed Here was error of opinion with much modesty and sweetness of temper on one side and on the other an over-active and impetuous zeal to attest a truth It uses not to be so for errour usually is supported with confidence and truth suppressed and discountenanced by indifferency But that it might appear that the errour was not the sin but the uncharitableness Stephen was accounted a zelous and furious person and S. Cyprian though deceived yet a very good man and of great sanctity For although every errour is to be opposed yet according to the variety of errours so is there variety of proceedings If it be against Faith that is a destruction of any part of the foundation it is with zeal to be resisted and we have for it an Apostolical warrant contend earnestly for the Faith but then as these things recede farther from the foundation our certainty is the less and their necessity not so much and therefore it were very fit that our confidence should be according to our evidence and our zeal according to our confidence and our confidence should then be the Rule of our Communion and the lightness of an Article should be considered with the weight of a precept of charity And therefore there are some errours to be reproved rather by a private friend than a publick censure and the persons of the men not avoided but admonished and their Doctrine rejected not their Communion few opinions are of that malignity which are to be rejected with the same exterminating spirit and confidence of aversation with which the first Teachers of Christianity condemned Ebion Manes and Corinthus and in the condemnation of Hereticks the personal iniquity is more considerable than the obliquity of the doctrine not for the rejection of the Article but for censuring the persons and therefore it is the piety of the man that excused S. Cyprian which is a certain Argument that it is not the opinion but the impiety that condemns and makes the Heretick And this was it which Vincentius Lirinensis said in this very case of S. Cyprian Vnius ejusdem opinionis mirum videri potest judicamus authores Catholicos sequaces haereticos Excusamus Magistros condemnamus Scholasticos Qui scripserunt libros sunt haeredes Coeli quorum librorum defensores detruduntur ad infernum Which saying if we confront against the saying of Salvian condemning the first Authors of the Arrian Sect and acquitting the Followers we are taught by these two wise men that an errour is not it that sends a man to Hell but he that begins the heresy and is the author of the Sect he is the man marked out to ruine and his Followers scaped when the Heresiarch commenced the errour upon pride and ambition and his Followers went after him in simplicity of their heart and so it was most commonly but on the contrary when the first man in the opinion was honestly and invincibly deceived as S. Cyprian was and that his Scholars to maintain their credit or their ends maintain'd the opinion not for the excellency of the reason perswading but for the benefit and accrewments or peevishness as did the Donatists qui de Cypriani authoritate sibi carnaliter blandiuntur as S. Austin said of them then the Scholars are the Hereticks and the master is a Catholick For his errour is not the heresy formally and an erring person may be a Catholick A wicked person in his errour becomes heretick when the good man in the same errour shall have all the rewards of Faith For what ever an ill man believes if he therefore believe it because it serves his own ends be his belief true or false the man hath an heretical mind for to serve his own ends his mind is prepared to believe
videantur said Vincent Lirinensis in which every man knows what innumerable ways there are of being mistaken God having in things not simply necessary left such a difficulty upon those parts of Scripture which are the subject matters of controversie ad edomandam labore superbiam intellectum à fastidio revocandum as S. Austin gives a reason that all that err honestly are therefore to be pitied and tolerated because it is or may be the condition of every man at one time or other 8. The sum is this Since holy Scripture is the repository of divine truths and the great rule of Faith to which all Sects of Christians do appeal for probation of their several opinions and since all agree in the Articles of the Creed as things clearly and plainly set down and as containing all that which is of simple and prime necessity and since on the other side there are in Scripture many other mysteries and matters of Question upon which there is a vail since there are so many Copies with infinite varieties of reading since a various Interpunction a parenthesis a letter an accent may much alter the sence since some places have divers literal sences many have spiritual mystical and Allegorical meanings since there are so many tropes metonymies ironies hyperboles proprieties and improprieties of language whose understanding depends upon such circumstances that it is almost impossible to know its proper interpretation now that the knowledge of such circumstances and particular stories is irrevocably lost since there are some mysteries which at the best advantage of expression are not easie to be apprehended and whose explication by reason of our imperfections must needs be dark sometimes weak sometimes unintelligible and lastly since those ordinary means of expounding Scripture as searching the Originals conference of places parity of reason and analogie of Faith are all dubious uncertain and very fallible he that is the wisest and by consequence the likeliest to expound truest in all probability of reason will be very far from confidence because every one of these and many more are like so many degrees of improbability and incertainty all depressing our certainty of finding out truth in such mysteries and amidst so many difficulties And therefore a wise man that considers this would not willingly be prescribed to by others and therefore if he also be a just man he will not impose upon others for it is best every man should be left in that liberty from which no man can justly take him unless he could secure him from errour So that here also there is a necessity to conserve the liberty of Prophesying and Interpreting Scripture a necessity derived from the consideration of the difficulty of Scripture in Questions controverted and the uncertainty of any internal medium of Interpretation SECT V. Of the insufficiency and uncertainty of Tradition to Expound Scripture or determine Questions 1. IN the next place we must consider those extrinsecal means of Interpreting Scripture and determining Questions which they most of all confide in that restrain Prophesying with the greatest Tyranny The first and principal is Tradition which is pretended not only to expound Scripture Necesse enim est propter tantos tam varii erroris anfractus ut Propheticae Apostolicae interpretationis linea secundum Ecclesiastici Catholici sensus normam dirigatur But also to propound Articles upon a distinct stock such Articles whereof there is no mention and proposition in Scripture And in this topick not only the distinct Articles are clear and plain like as the fundamentals of Faith expressed in Scripture but also it pretends to expound Scripture and to determine Questions with so much clarity and certainty as there shall neither be errour nor doubt remaining and therefore no disagreeing is here to be endured And indeed it is most true if Tradition can perform these pretensions and teach us plainly and assure us infallibly of all truths which they require us to believe we can in this case have no reason to disbelieve them and therefore are certainly Hereticks if we doe because without a crime without some humane interest or collaterall design we cannot disbelieve traditive Doctrine or traditive Interpretation if it be infallibly proved to us that tradition is an infallible guide 2. But here I first consider that tradition is no repository of Articles of faith and therefore the not following it is no Argument of heresie for besides that I have shewed Scripture in its plain expresses to be an abundant rule of Faith and manners Tradition is a topick as fallible as any other so fallible that it cannot be sufficient evidence to any man in a matter of Faith or Question of heresie 3. For first I find that the Fathers were infinitely deceived in their account and enumeration of Traditions sometimes they did call some Traditions such not which they knew to be so but by Arguments and presumptions they concluded them so Such as was that of S. Austin ea quae universalis tenet Ecclesia nec à Conciliis instituta reperiuntur credibile est ab Apostolorum traditione descendisse Now suppose this rule probable that 's the most yet it is not certain It might come by custome whose Original was not known but yet could not derive from an Apostolical principle Now when they conclude of particular Traditions by a general rule and that general rule not certain but at the most probable in any thing and certainly false in some things it is wonder if the productions that is their judgments and pretence fail so often And if I should but instance in all the particulars in which Tradition was pretended falsely or uncertainly in the first Ages I should multiply them to a troublesome variety for it was then accounted so glorious a thing to have spoken with the persons of the Apostles that if any man could with any colour pretend to it he might abuse the whole Church and obtrude what he listed under the specious title of Apostolical Tradition and it is very notorious to every man that will but read and observe the Recognitions or stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus where there is enough of such false wares shewed in every book and pretended to be no less than from the Apostles In the first Age after the Apostles Papias pretended he received a Tradition from the Apostles that Christ before the day of Judgment should reign a thousand years upon Earth and his Saints with him in temporal felicities and this thing proceeding from so great an Authority as the testimony of Papias drew after it all or most of the Christians in the first three hundred years For besides that the Millenary opinion is expresly taught by Papias Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Lactantius Severus Victorinus Apollinaris Nepos and divers others famous in their time Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Tryphon says it was the belief of all Christians exactly Orthodox 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
at Trent then we also have a question to ask and that is Where was your Religion before Trent The Council of Trent determined That the Souls departed before the day of Judgment enjoy the Beatifical Vision It is certain this Article could not be shewn in the Confession of any of the ancient Churches for most of the Fathers were of another opinion But that which is the greatest offence of Christendom is not only that these doctrines which we say are false were yet affirmed but that those things which the Church of God did always reject or held as Uncertain should be made Articles of Faith and so become parts of your Religion and of these it is that I again ask the question which none of your side shall ever be able to answer for you Where was your Religion before Trent I could instance in many particulars but I shall name one to you which because the thing of it self is of no great consequence it will appear the more unreasonable and intolerable that your Church should adopt it into the things of necessary belief especially since it was only a matter of fact and they took the false part too For in the 21. Sess. Chap. 4. it is affirmed That although the holy Fathers did give the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Infants yet they did it without any necessity of salvation that is they did not believe it necessary to their salvation Which is notoriously false and the contrary is marked out with the black-lead of every man almost that reads their Works and yet your Council says this is sine controversiâ credendum to be believed without all controversie and all Christians forbidden to believe or teach otherwise So that here it is made an Article of Faith amongst you that a man shall neither believe his reason nor his eyes and who can shew any Confession of Faith in which all the Trent-doctrine was professed and enjoyned under pain of damnation And before the Council of Constance the doctrine touching the Popes power was so new so decried that as Gerson says he hardly should have escaped the note of Heresie that would have said so much as was there defined So that in that Article which now makes a great part of your belief where was your Religion before the Council of Constance And it is notorious that your Council of Constance determined the doctrine of the Half-communion with a Non obstante to Christ's institution that is with a defiance to it or a noted observed neglect of it and with a profession it was otherwise in the Primitive Church Where then was your Religion before John Hus and Hierom of Prague's time against whom that Council was convened But by this instance it appears most certainly that your Church cannot shew her Confessions immediately after Christ and therefore if we could not shew ours immediately before Luther it were not half so much For since you receded from Christ's Doctrine we might well recede from yours and it matters not who or how many or how long they professed your doctrine if neither Christ nor his Apostles did teach it So that if these Articles constitute your Church your Church was invisible at the first and if ours was invisible afterwards it matters not For yours was invisible in the days of light and ours was invisible in the days of darkness For our Church was always visible in the reflections of Scripture and he that had his eyes of Faith and Reason might easily have seen these Truths all the way which constitute our Church But I add yet farther that our Church before Luther was there where your Church was in the same place and in the same persons For divers of the Errors which have been amongst us reformed were not the constituent Articles of your Church before Luther's time for before the last Councils of your Church a man might have been of your Communion upon easier terms and Indulgences were indeed a practice but no Article of Faith before your men made it so and that very lately and so were many other things besides So that although your men cozen the credulous and the simple by calling yours The old Religion yet the difference is vast between Truth and their affirmative even as much as between old Errors and new Articles For although Ignorance and Superstition had prepared the Oar yet the Councils of Constance and Basil and Trent especially were the Forges and the Mint Lastly If your men had not by all the vile and violent arts of the world stopped the mouths of dissenters the question would quickly have been answered or our Articles would have been so confessed so owned and so publick that the question could never have been asked But in despite of all opposition there were great numbers of professors who did protest and profess and practise our doctrines contrary to your Articles as it is demonstrated by the Divines of Germany in Illyricus his Catalogus testium veritatis and in Bishop Morton's Appeal But with your next objection you are better pleased and your men make most noise with it For you pretend that by our confession Salvation may be had in your Church but your men deny it to us and therefore by the confession of both sides you may be safe and there is no question concerning you but of us there is great question for none but our selves say that we can be saved I answer 1. That Salvation may be had in your Church is it ever the truer because we say it If it be not it can add no confidence to you for the Proposition gets no strength by our affirmative But if it be then our authority is good or else our reason and if either be then we have more reason to be believed speaking of our selves because we are concerned to see that our selves may be in a state of hope and therefore we would not venture on this side if we had not greater reason to believe well of our selves than of you And therefore believe us when it is more likely that we have greater reason because we have greater concernments and therefore greater considerations 2. As much charity as your men pretend us to speak of you yet it is a clear case our hope of your Salvation is so little that we dare not venture our selves on your side The Burger of Oldwater being to pass a River in his journey to Daventry bad his man try the ford telling him he hoped he should not be drowned for though he was afraid the River was too deep yet he thought his Horse would carry him out or at least the Boats would fetch him off Such a confidence we may have of you but you will find that but little warranty if you remember how great an interest it is that you venture 3. It would be remembred that though the best ground of your hope is not the goodness of your own faith but the greatness of our charity yet we that charitably
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. 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. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
Gentiles 601 n. 6 7. Two kinds of Conversion one the same with Repentance the other different from it 602 n. 10. The synonymal terms by which Repentance is signified in Scripture 602 n. 11 12. Every relapse after Repentance makes the sin less pardonable 815 n. 11 61 64. Repentance is not true unless the sinner be brought to that pass that he seriously wishes he had never done the sin 827 n. 21. The method and progression of Repentance 827 n. 22. The method of Repentance in the Primitive Church 832 833. The usual acts of Repentance what they are 845 n. 74. Tertullian's description of Repentance 848 n. 80. The penitent must take care that his Repentance injure not his health 852 n. 94. and 858 n. 112. Restitution Considered as a part of Repentance 849 n. 84. No Repentance is entire without Restitution where it is required 648 n. 50. Book of the Revelation Chap. 19. v. 9. Blessed are they that are called to the marriage of the Lamb explained 679 n. 62. Righteousness What was the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees 673 n. 45. The Righteousness of the Law and Gospel how they differ 673 n. 46. Romanists The arts by which they have managed the Article of Transubstantiation Ep. Ded. to Real pres 174. It is acknowledged by them that Transubstantiation cannot be proved out of Scripture 187 § 2. and 298. They and the Non-conformists have always in England encreased alternately as the State minded the reducing either Pref. to Diss. pag. 2 3. They make Propositions which are not in Scripture to be Articles of Faith which is condemned by the Fathers Pref. pag. 4 5. The Character of the Roman Catholick Religion as it is professed by the Irish Pref. to Diss. pag. 6 7 8. Where the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to be found 313 c. 2. § 1. How that Church abuseth Contrition 314. The Roman Doctors prevaricate in the whole Doctrine of Repentance 321. They teach the habit of the sin is not a distinct evil from the act of it 322. That one man may satisfie for the sins of another is their Doctrine 322 c. 2. § 6. They hold that habits of sin are no sins 322 c. 2. § 6. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. They teach that neither Attention nor Devotion are required in our Prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. They teach the Invocation of Saints 329 332. and that with the same style as they pray to God ibid. They teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. They interpret the Blessed Virgin to be the Throne of Grace 329. Of their Exorcisms 333 § 10. They attribute the conveying of Grace to things of their own inventing 337 § 11. The Sacraments they teach do not onely convey Grace but supply the defect of it 337. They teach Lying and Equivocation 340. They teach that a man may steal or lie for a good end 341 c. 3. § 1. They keep no Faith with Hereticks 341. They teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken to save the life of a King or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Pope hath power as they teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. An Excommunicate King they teach may be deposed or killed 344 c. 3. § 3. A Son or Wife they absolve from their duty to Husband or Father if the Husband or Father be heretical 345. Their Religion no friend to Kings 345. Their Opinions so injurious to Kings are not the Doctrines of private men onely 345. They have no Tradition to assure them the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical 361. Of what Authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They hold the Scripture for no infallible Rule 381 § 1. Even among them the Authority of General Councils is but precarious 391. The great uncertainties the Romanists do relie upon 397 400. Instances of some Doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others not to be de fide 398. Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. The Character of the Church of Rome 403. Neither the Church of Rome nor the Fathers nor School-men are agreed upon the definition of a Sacrament 404. The Romanists by their doctrine of Tradition gave great advantage to the Socinians 425. They impute greater virtue to their Sacramentals then to their Sacraments 429. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed in that Article of the Catholick Church by restraining it to the Roman 448. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. They teach that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. Their Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of the Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Of the Miracles wrought now-a-days by the Romanists 452. The uncharitableness of that Church 460. That Church arrogates to her self an Empire over Consciences 461. The Church of Rome imposes Articles of her own devising as necessary to Salvation 461. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church ibid. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling Propositions into their Faith 462. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. The dangers in which they are that live in the Roman Communion 466 467. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Their doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men 473 477. Divers other instances wherein they teach for doctrines the Commandments of men 494. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere Innovation 531 532. That Church would have sold the Rite of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. Ded. to the Treatise of Confirmation pag. 5. They teach that Confirmation is a Sacrament and yet hold it not necessary 3. b. Epistle to the Romans Chap. 5. v. 12. ad 19. explained 887 888 889 900 901 903. Chap. 5. v. 12. largely explained 885 887 888 889. Chap. 6.23 The wages of sin is death explained 621 n. 33. Chap. 6.13 20. explained 667 n. 27. Chap. 7.23 explained 723 n. 52. Chap. 7.14 explained 671 n. 40. Chap. 6.7 explained 672 n. 44. Chap. 7.7 explained 689 n. 5. Chap. 5.12 explained 709 710. Chap. 5.13 14. explained 710 n. 7 11. Chap. 7.23 explained 773 and 772. Chap. 7.15 19. explained 772 773. Saint Augustine restrained the words of this Apostle Rom. 7.15 to the matter of Desires and Concupiscence and excluded all evil actions from the meaning of that Text 775 n. 18. Reasons against that Interpretation given by that Father 776 n. 19. Chap. 7.9
our infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered c. From whence the Conclusion that is inferred is in the words of S. Paul that we must pray with the Spirit therefore not with set forms therefore ex tempore Sect. 13. THE Collection is somewhat wild for there is great independency in the several parts and much more is in the Conclusion than was virtually in the premises But such as it is the Authors of it I suppose will own it And therefore we will examine the main design of it and then consider the particular means of its perswasion quoted in the Objection Sect. 14. IT is one of the Priviledges of the Gospel and the benefit of Christs ascension that the Holy Ghost is given unto the Church and is become to us the fountain of gifts and graces But these gifts and graces are improvements and helps of our natural faculties of our art and industry not extraordinary miraculous and immediate infusions of habits and gifts That without Gods spirit we cannot pray aright that our infirmities need his help that we know not what to ask of our selves is most true and if ever any Heretick was more confident of his own naturals or did evermore undervalue Gods grace than the Pelagian did yet he denies not this but what then therefore without study without art without premeditation without learning the Spirit gives the gift of prayer and is it his grace that without any natural or artificial help makes us pray ex tempore no such thing the Objection proves nothing of this Sect. 15. HERE therefore we will joyn issue whether the gifts and helps of the Spirit be immediate infusions of the faculties and powers and perfect abilities Or that he doth assist us only by his aids external and internal in the use of such means which God and nature hath given to man to ennoble his soul better his faculties and to improve his understanding ** That the aids of the Holy Ghost are only assistances to us in the use of natural and artificial means I will undertake to prove and from thence it will evidently follow that labour and hard study and premeditation will soonest purchase the gift of prayer and ascertain us of the assistance of the Spirit and therefore set Forms of Prayer studied and considered of are in a true and proper sence and without Enthusiasm the fruits of the Spirit Sect. 16. FIRST Gods Spirit did assist the Apostles by ways extraordinary and fit for the first institution of Christianity but doth assist us now by the expresses of those first assistances which he gave to them immediately Sect. 17. THUS the Holy Ghost brought to their Memory all things which Jesus spake and did and by that means we come to know all that the Spirit knew to be necessary for us the Holy Ghost being Author of our knowledge by being the fountain of the Revelation and we are therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taught by God because the Spirit of God revealed the Articles of our Religion that they might be known to all ages of the Church and this is testified by S. Paul He gave some Apostles and some Prophets c. for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man c. This was the effect of Christ's ascension when he gave gifts unto men that is when he sent the Spirit the verification of the promise of the Father The effect of this immission of the Holy Ghost was to fill all things and that for ever to build up the Church of God until the day of consummation so that the Holy Ghost abides with the Church for ever by transmitting those revelations which he taught the Apostles to all Christians in succession Now as the Holy Ghost taught the Apostles and by them still teaches us what to believe so it is certain he taught the Apostles how and what to pray and because it is certain that all the rules concerning our duty in prayer and all those graces which we are to pray for are transmitted to us by Derivation from the Apostles whom the Holy Ghost did teach even to that very purpose also that they should teach us it follows evidently that the gift of prayer is a gift of the Holy Ghost and yet to verifie this Proposition we need no other immediate inspiration or extraordinary assistance than that we derive from the Holy Ghost by the conveyance of the Apostolical Sermons and Writings Sect. 18. THE reason is the same in Faith and Prayer and if there were any difference in the acquisition or reception faith certainly needs a more immediate infusion as being of greatest necessity and yet a grace to which we least cooperate it being the first of graces and less of the will in it than any other But yet the Holy Ghost is the Author of our faith and we believe with the Spirit it is S. Pauls expression and yet our belief comes by hearing and reading the holy Scriptures and their interpretations Now reconcile these two together Faith comes by hearing and yet is the gift of the Spirit and it says that the gifts of the Spirit are not extasies and immediate infusions of habits but helps from God to enable us upon the use of the means of his own appointment to believe to speak to understand to prophesie and to pray Sect. 19. BUT whosoever shall look for any other gifts of the Spirit besides the parts of nature helped by industry and Gods blessing upon it and the revelations or the supplies of matter in holy Scripture will be very far to seek having neither reason promise nor experience of his side For why should the spirit of prayer be any other than as the gift and spirit of faith as S. Paul calls it acquired by humane means using divine aids that is by our endeavours in hearing reading catechizing desires to obey and all this blessed and promoted by God this produces faith Nay it is true of us what Christ told his Apostles sine me nihil potestis facere not nihil magnum aut difficile but omninò nihil as S. Austin observes Without me ye can do nothing and yet we were not capable of a Law or of reward or punishment if neither with him nor without him we were able to do any thing And therefore although in the midst of all our co-operation we may say to God in the words of the Prophet Domine omnia opera operatus es in nobis O Lord thou hast wrought all our works in us yet they are opera nostra still God works and we work First is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods grace is brought to us he helps and gives us abilities and then
custom of the Church was for them who were in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Pulpit to read their offices and devotions They read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the word in the Canon Those things which signifie the greatest or first Antiquity are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was spoken proverbially to signifie ancient things And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians the singers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity which also is the more credible because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment as a thing known by so long an use till it came to be their appellative * The 17th and 18th Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Liturgy that 's the word or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists and Readers they did not sing or say ex tempore but they read Prayers and Psalms and sung them out of a Book neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still the same form of prayers without variation Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he does dictate the hymns to the singers and then of the singers there is no question and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Their office was the same with the Reader they did ex praescripto praeire ad verbum referre the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece The first read out of a Book the appointed prayers and the others rehearsed them after Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office and no publick office be described Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more and pass on ad alia And that is that I never yet saw any instance example or pretence of precedent of any Bishop Priest or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church and although in some places single Bishops or peradventure other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their own into the Church yet ever they were compositions and premeditations and were brought thither there to be repeated often and added to the Liturgy and although the Liturgies while they were less full than since they have been were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons yet the inconvenience grew so great by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit that the Church as She always had forms of publick Prescription so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets and such Spirits when they are once tried whether they be of God or no tryed by a lawful superiour and a competent Judge may then venture into the open air And it were a strange imprudence choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt and declar'd and remedied For why should we be in love with that evil against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches by the provision and defence of Laws For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason follows Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners Their reason is good and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personal concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two daies before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone The Church hath 1 power and authority and 2 command 3 and ability or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy and 4 the Church always did so in all descents from Moses to Christ from Christ to the Apostles from them all to all descending Ages for I have instanced till St. Austin's time and since there is no Question the people were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion they used unalterable forms of Prayers described out of the Books of publick Liturgy it remains only that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so and whether she did well or no In order to which I consider Sect. 97. FIRST Every man hath personal needs of his own and he that understands his own condition and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity his temporal estate in order to justice and charity and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health and his health in order to the service of God as every wise and good man does will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities as he can do for his own caeteris paribus no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man and therefore if he have proportionable abilities it is allowed to him and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God and he can best express his own sence or at least best sigh forth his own meaning and if he be a good
if all Christian Churches had one common Liturgy there were not a greater symbol to testifie nor a greater instrument to preserve the Catholick Communion and when ever a Schism was commenc'd and that they called one another Heretick they not only forsook to pray with one another but they also altered their Forms by interposition of new Clauses Hymns and Collects and new Rites and Ceremonies only those parts that combined kept the same Liturgy and indeed the same Forms of Prayer were so much the instrument of Union that it was the only ligament of their Society for their Creeds I reckon as part of their Liturgy for so they ever were so that this may teach us a little to guess I will not say into how many Churches but into how many innumerable atoms and minutes of Churches those Christians must needs be scattered who alter their Forms according to the number of persons and the number of their meetings every company having a new Form of Prayer at every convention And this consideration will not be vain if we remember how great a blessing Unity in Churches is and how hard to be kept with all the arts in the world and how every thing is powerful enough for its dissolution But that a publick Form of Liturgy was the great instrument of Communion in the Primitive Church appears in this that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or excommunication was an exclusion à communicatione orationis conventûs omnis sancti commercii from the participation of the publick meeting and Prayers and therefore the more united the Prayer is still it is the greater instrument of Union the Authority and Consent the publick Spirit and common Acceptation are so many degrees of a more firm and indissoluble Communion Sect. 103. THIRDLY To this I add that without prescribed Forms issues of the publick Spirit and Authority publick Communion cannot be regular and certain as may appear in one or two plain instances It is a practise prevailing among those of our Brethren that are zealous for ex tempore or not enjoyned Prayers to pray their Sermons over to reduce their Doctrine into Devotion and Liturgie I mislike it not for the thing it self if it were regularly for the manner and the matter always pious and true But who shall assure me when the preacher hath disputed or rather dogmatically decreed a point of Predestination or of prescience of contingency or of liberty or any of the most mysterious parts of Divinity and then prayes his Sermon over that he then prays with the Spirit Unless I be sure that he also Preached with the Spirit I cannot be sure that he Prays with the Spirit for all he prays ex tempore Nay if I hear a Protestant preach in the Morning and an Anabaptist in the Afternoon to day a Presbyterian to morrow an Independant am I not most sure that when they have preached contradictories and all of them pray their Sermons over that they do not all pray with the Spirit More than one in this case cannot pray with the Spirit possibly all may pray against him Sect. 104. FOURTHLY From whence I thus argue in behalf of set Forms of prayer That in the case above put how shall I or any man else say Amen to their prayers that preach and pray contradictories At least I am much hindred in my devotion For besides that it derives our opinions into our devotions makes every School-point become our Religion and makes God a party so far as we can intitling him to our impertinent wranglings Besides this I say while we should attend to our addresses towards God we are to consider whether the point be true or no and by that time we have tacitely discoursed it we are upon another point which also perhaps is as questionable as the former and by this time our spirit of devotion is a little discomposed and something out of countenance there is so much other imployment for the spirit the spirit of discerning and judging All which inconveniences are avoided in set forms of Liturgy For we know before hand the conditions of our communion and to what we are to say Amen to which if we like it we may repair if not there is no harm done your devotion shall not be surprized nor your communion invaded as it may be often in your ex tempore prayers and unlimited devotions Sect. 105. FIFTHLY and this thing hath another collateral inconvenience which is of great consideration for upon what confidence can we solicite any Recusants to come to our Church where we cannot promise them that the devotions there to be used shall be innocent nor can we put him into a condition to judge for himself if he will venture he may but we can use no argument to make him choose our Churches though he would quit his own Sect. 106. SIXTHLY So that either the people must have an implicite faith in the Priest and then may most easily be abused or if they have not they cannot joyn in the prayer it cannot become to them an instrument of communion but by chance and irregularly and ex post facto when the prayer is approv'd of and after the devotion is spent for till then they cannot judge and before they do they cannot say Amen and till Amen be said there is no benefit of the prayer nor no union of hearts and desires and therefore as yet no communion Sect. 107. SEVENTHLY Publick forms of prayer are great advantages to convey an Article of faith into the most secret retirement of the Spirit and to establish it with a most firm perswasion and endear it to us with the greatest affection For since our prayers are the greatest instruments and conveyances of blessing and mercy to us that which mingles with our hopes which we owe to God which is sent of an errand to fetch a mercy for us in all reason will become the dearer to us for all these advantages And just so is an Article of belief inserted into our devotions and made a part of prayer it is extreamly confirmed by that confidence and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fulness of perswasion that must exclude all doubting from our prayers and it insinuates it self into our affection by being mingled with our desires and we grow bold in it by having offered it to God and made so often acknowledgment of it to him who is not to be mocked Sect. 108. AND certainly it were a very strange Liturgy in which there were no publick Confession of Faith for as it were deficient in one act of Gods worship which is offering the understanding up to God bringing it in subjection to Christ and making publick profession of it it also loses a very great advantage which might accrue to Faith by making it a part of our Liturgick devotions and this was so apprehended by the Ancients in the Church our Fathers in Christ that commonly they used to oppose a Hymn or a Collect or a Doxology in
Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi ordinis none of the twelve but such as Saint James and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and Saint Paul himself To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke for here it was that Saint Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters and therefore they imposed hands and they only And yet to make the business up compleat Saint Mark was amongst them but he imposed no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as Saint Paul himself was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist and one of the 72. Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were less than Prophets that is who were not more than meer Presbyters The sum is this Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne gens sit Vnius aetatis lest it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto and were commanded to do so and the 72. never did so therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy as the Church it self SECT VIII And Confirmation SECONDLY The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergy could not is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost Saint Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72. Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows yet he could not do this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For Saint Philip could and did do miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus Saint Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelve only but Apostolick men the other Apostles Saint Paul did it Saint Philip could not nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired First Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternal and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent he dyed suddenly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporal punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church and the power of the Keys is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith these miracles at first did confirm the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appears from these considerations First Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum the Holy Ghost in his stead and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father This was pertinent to all Christendom Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem so it was in the Prophecy For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to all them that are afar off even to as many as the Lord shall call So it was in the first accomplishing To all And this for ever for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you and he shall abide with you for ever for it was in subsidium to supply the comforts of his desired presence and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again Now then this promise being to be communicated to all and that for ever must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission or by 2. an ordinary Ministery Not the first for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles
If the second as it is most certain so then the main Question is evicted viz. that something perpetually necessary was in the power of the Apostles which was not in the power of the inferiour Ministers nor of any but themselves and their Colleagues to wit Ministerium S. Spiritus or the ordinary office of giving the holy Ghost by imposition of hands For this promise was performed to the Apostles in Pentecost to the rest of the faithful after Baptisme Quod n. nunc in confirmandis Neophytis manûs impositio tribuit singulis hoc tunc spiritûs sancti descensio in credentium populo donavit Vniversis saith Eusebius Emissenus Now we find no other way of performing it nor any ordinary conveyance of the Spirit to all people but this and we find that the Holy Ghost actually was given this way Therefore the effect to wit the Holy Ghost being to continue for ever and the promise of universal concernment this way also of its communication to wit by Apostolical imposition of hands is also perpetuum ministerium to be succeeded to and to abide for ever Secondly This Ministery of imposition of hands for confirmation of baptized people is so far from being a temporary Grace and to determine with the persons of the Apostles that it is a fundamental point of Christianity an essential ingredient to its composition Saint Paul is my Author Therefore leaving the principles of the Doctrine of Christ let us go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works faith towards God the doctrines of Baptism and of laying on of hands c. Here is imposition of hands reckoned as part of the foundation and a principle of Christianity in Saint Paul's Catechism Now imposition of hands is used by Name in Scripture but for two Ministrations First For Ordination and secondly for this whatsoever it is Imposition of hands for Ordination does indeed give the Holy Ghost but not as he is that promise which is called the promise of the Father For the Holy Ghost for Ordination was given before the Ascension John 20. But the promises of the Holy Ghost the Comforter the Paraclete I say not the Ordainer or Fountain of Priestly order that was not given till the day of Pentecost and besides it was promised to all Christian people and the other was given only to the Clergy * Add to this that Saint Paul having laid this in the foundation makes his progress from this to perfection as he calls it that is to higher mysteries and then his discourse is immediately of the Priesthood Evangelical which is Originally in Christ ministerially in the Clergy so that unless we will either confound the terms of his progress or imagine him to make the Ministery of the Clergy the foundation of Christ's Priesthood and not rather contrary it is clear that by imposition of hands Saint Paul means not ordination and therefore confirmation there being no other ordinary ministry of imposition of hands but these two specified in holy Scripture For as for benediction in which Christ used the ceremony and as for healing in which Ananias and the Apostles used it the first is clearly no Principle or fundamental point of Christianity and the second is confessedly extraordinary therefore the argument is still firm upon its first principles 3. Lastly The Primitive Church did de facto and believed themselves to be tyed de jure to use this Rite of Confirmation and giving of the Holy Ghost after Baptism Saint Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius tells a story of a young man whom S. John had converted and committed to a Bishop to be brought up in the Faith of Christendom Qui saith S. Clement eum baptismi Sacramento illuminavit posteà verò sigillo Domini tanquam perfectâ tutâ ejus animi custodiâ obsignavit The Bishop first baptized him then consigned him Justin Martyr sayes speaking pro more Ecclesiae according to the Custom of the Church that when the mysteries of Baptism were done then the faithful are consigned or confirmed Saint Cyprian relates to this story of Saint Philip and the Apostles and gives this account of the whole affair Et idcircò quia legitimum Ecclesiasticum baptismum consequnti fuerant baptizari eos ultrà non oportebat Sed tantummodo id quod deerat id à Petro Iohanne factum erat ut oratione pro eis habitâ manu impositâ invocaretur infunderetur super eos Spiritus S. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur Praepositis Ecclesiae offerantur ut per nostram orationem ac manûs impositionem Spiritum S. consequantur signaculo Dominico confirmentur Saint Peter and Saint Iohn by imposing their hands on the Converts of Samaria praying over them and giving them the Holy Ghost made supply to them of what was wanting after Baptism and this is to this day done in the Church for new baptized people are brought to the Bishops and by imposition of their hands obtain the Holy Ghost But for this who pleases to be farther satisfied in the Primitive faith of Christendom may see it in the decretal Epistles of Cornelius the Martyr to Fabianus recorded by Eusebius in the Epistle written to Iulius and Iulianus Bishops under the name of Saint Clement in the Epistle of Vrban P. and Martyr in Tertullian in Saint Austin and in Saint Cyril of Ierusalem whose whole third Mistagogique Catechism is concerning Confirmation This only The Catholicks whose Christian prudence it was in all true respects to disadvantage Hereticks lest their poyson should infect like a Pest laid it in Novatus's dish as a crime He was baptized in his bed and was not confirmed Vnde nec Spiritum sanctum unquam potuerit promereri therefore he could never receive the gift of the Holy Ghost So Cornelius in the forequoted Epistle Whence it is evident that then it was the belief of Christendom that the Holy Ghost was by no ordinary Ministery given to faithful people after Baptism but only by Apostolical or Episcopal consignation and imposition of hands What also the faith of Christendom was concerning the Minister of confirmation and that Bishops only could do it I shall make evident in the descent of this discourse Here the scene lies in Scripture where it is clear that Saint Philip one of the 72. Disciples as antiquity reports him and an Evangelist and a Disciple as Scripture also expresses him could not impose hands for application of the promise of the Father and ministerial giving of the Holy Ghost but the Apostles must go to do it and also there is no example in Scripture of any that ever did it but an Apostle and yet this is an ordinary Ministery which de jure ought and de facto alwayes was continued in the Church Therefore there must alwayes be an ordinary office of Apostleship in the Church to do it that is an
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
witness 2. I consider that necessity may excuse a personal delinquency but I never heard that necessity did build a Church Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin for if it be absolutely a case of necessity the action ceaseth to be a sin but indeed if God means to build a Church in any place he will do it by means proportionable to that end that is by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church * So that supposing that ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of Priests and Deacons as I have proved it is and therefore for the founding or perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed There are divers stories in Ruffinus to this purpose When Aedesius and Frumenâ—ius were surprized by the Barbarous Indians they preached Christianity and baptized many but themselves being but Lay-men could make no Ordinations and so not fix a Church What then was to be done in the case Frumentius Alexandriam pergit rem omnem ut gesta est narrat Episcopo ac monet ut provideat virum aliquem dignum quem congregatis jam plurimis Christianis in Barbarico solo Episcopum mittat Frumentius comes to Alexandria to get a Bishop Athanasius being then Patriarch ordained Frumentius their Bishop Et tradito ei Sacerdotio redire eum cum Domini Gratiâ unde venerat jubet ex quo saith Ruffinus in Indiae partibus populi Christianorum Ecclesiae factae sunt Sacerdotium coepit The same happened in the case of the Iberians converted by a Captive woman Posteà verò quà m Ecclesia magnificè constructa est populi fidem Dei majore ardore sâ—â—â—ebant captivae monitis ad Imperatorem Constantinum totius Gentis legatio mittitur Res gesta exponitur Sacerdotes mittere oratur qui coeptum erga se Dei munus implerent The work of Christianity could not be compleated nor a Church founded without the Ministery of Bishops * Thus the case is evident that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquiring one and where God means to found a Church there he will supply them with those means and Ministeries which himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity And therefore if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary Ministration amongst us prove heretical still Gods Church is Catholick and though with trouble yet Orthodox Bishops may be acquir'd For just so it happened when Mauvia Queen of the Saracens was so earnest to have Moses the Hermite made the Bishop of her Nation and offered peace to the Catholicks upon that condition Lucius an Arian troubled the affair by his interposing and offering to ordain Moses The Hermite discovered his vileness Et ita majore dedecore deformatus compulsus est acquiescere Moses refus'd to be ordain'd by him that was an Arian So did the reform'd Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman Communion But what then might they have done Even the same that Moses did in that necessity Compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exilium truserat Lucius sacerdotium sumere Those good people might have had order from the Bishops of England or the Lutheran Churches if at least they thought our Churches Catholick and Christian. If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this will not an extraordinary calling justifie it Yea most certainly could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling viz. an evident prophesie demonstration of Miracles certainty of reason clarity of sence or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission But shall we then condemn those few of the Reformed Churches whose ordinations always have been without Bishops No indeed That must not be They stand or fall to their own Master And though I cannot justifie their ordinations yet what degree their necessity is of what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse and how far a good life and a Catholick belief may lead a man in the way to Heaven although the forms of external communion be not observed I cannot determine * For ought I know their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus I know thy works and where thou dwellest even where Sathans seat is and thou heldest fast my faith and hast not denied my Name Nihilominus habeo adversus te pauca Some few things I have against thee and yet of them the want of Canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied but if it cannot be done their sin indeed is the less but their misery the Greater * I am sure I have said sooth but whether or no it will be thought so I cannot tell and yet why it may not I cannot guess unless they only be impeccable which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them who themselves think that all the Church possibly may fail But this I would not have declared so freely had not the necessity of our own Churches required it and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordinations been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity for else why shall it be called Tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us and to the practice of the Catholick Church and yet in them be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them But I hope it will so happen to us that it will be verified here what was once said of the Catholicks under the fury of Justina Sed tantafuit perseverantia fidelium populorum ut animas prius amittere quà m Episcopum mallent If it were put to our choice rather to dye to wit the death of Martyrs not rebels than lose the sacred order and offices of Episcopacy without which no Priest no ordination no consecration of the Sacrament no absolution no rite or Sacrament legitimately can be performed in order to eternity The summe is this If the Canons and Sanctions Apostolical if the decrees of eight famous Councils in Christendom of Ancyra of Antioch of Sardis of Alexandria two of Constantinople the Arausican Council and that of Hispalis if the constant successive Acts of the famous Martyr-Bishops of Rome making ordinations if the testimony of the whole Pontifical book if the dogmatical resolution of so many Fathers S. Denis S. Cornelius S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Epiphanius S. Austin and divers others all appropriating ordinations to the Bishops hand if the constant voice of Christendom declaring ordinations made by Presbyters to be null and void in
and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sin of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiastical because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spiritual because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity for such things only are properly spiritual 5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arm either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part an external and an internal this is derived from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Judge of that or that the Bishops were not but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick who would not submit to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power It was so in the case of Aetiu◠the Arian and Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperor For all that the Prefect did or the Emperor in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholicks but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie for all his confident appeal and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personal delinquencies * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges though Delegates of the Emperor Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose in his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offered at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers and jurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance in stead of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops The Militia and the Politia are thine but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse That he would be pleased to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by Gods law they did appertain upon which intimation given the Bishops convened in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A Divine right to decide the Article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperor it is not lawful for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperor to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Council These are two distinct powers one from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent
titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the Prince of Priests Now since honour and excellency are terms of mutual relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so far as they participate of God so far they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must do him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the highest honour Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans honorem cathedrae potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus in civitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High-Priest ordained in the City viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat à Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself He that despiseth you despiseth me If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what is done to the Bishop is far more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odd one even this Whether Christ be to be honoured or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider we that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou my Lord Elijah said Obadiah to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schools So it was then And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation Angels and Governours and Fathers of our Faith and Stars Lights of the World the Crown of the Church Apostles of Jesus Christ nay Gods viz. to whom the Word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly Saint Hierom saith that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have proved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdom and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and get the best preferment from them to wit in a temporal Kingdom No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you What shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them Shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honorary appellative that was would have questioned him highly for it But if we go to the sence of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi or Master or Doctor or Father What shall we think now May we not be called Doctors God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith Saint Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the several places of the Gospels and may no man be called Master or Father Let an answer be thought on for these and the same will serve
the Bishops authority but it excludes the assistance of Lay-men from their Consistories Presbyter and Episcopus was instead of one word to S. Hierom but they are alwayes Clergy with him and all men else * But for the main Question Saint Ambrose did represent it to Valentinian the Emperour with confidence and humility In causa fidei vel Ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere qui nec Munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis The whole Epistle is admirable to this purpose Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus judicare That Clergy-men must only judge of Clergy-causes and this Saint Ambrose there calls judicium Episcopale The Bishops judicature Si tractandum est tractare in Ecclesiâ didici quod Majores fecerunt mei Si conferendum de fide Sacerdotum debet esse ista collatio sicut factum est sub Constantino Aug. memoriae Principe So that both matters of Faith and of Ecclesiastical Order are to be handled in the Church and that by Bishops and that sub Imperatore by permission and authority of the Prince For so it was in Nice under Constantine Thus far Saint Ambrose * Saint Athanasius reports that Hosius Bishop of Corduba President in the Nicene Council said it was the abomination of desolation that a Lay-man shall be Judge in Ecclesiasticis judiciis in Church-causes And Leontius calls Church-affairs Res alienas à Laicis things of another Court of a distinct cognisance from the Laity To these add the Council of Venice for it is very considerable in this Question Clerico nisi ex permissu Episcopi sui servorum suorum saecularia judicia adire non liceat Sed si fortasse Episcopi sui judicium coeperit habere suspectum aut ipsi de proprietate aliquâ adversus ipsum Episcopum fuerit nata contentio aliorum Episcoporum audientiam non saecularium potestatum debebit ambire Aliter à communione habeatur alienus Clergy-men without delegation from their Bishop may not hear the causes of their servants but the Bishop unless the Bishop be appealed from then other Bishops must hear the cause but no Lay-Judges by any means * These Sanctions of holy Church it pleased the Emperour to ratifie by an Imperial Edict for so Justinian commanded that in causes Ecclesiastical secular Judges should have no interest Sed sanctissimus Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat The Bishop according to the sacred Canons must be the sole Judge of Church-matters I end this with the decretal of Saint Gregory one of the four Doctors of the Church Cavendum est à Fraternitate vestrâ ne saecularibus viris atque non sub regulâ nostrâ degentibus res Ecclesiasticae committantur Heed must be taken that matters Ecclesiastical be not any wayes concredited to secular persons But of this I have twice spoken already Sect. 36. and Sect. 41. The thing is so evident that it is next to impudence to say that in Antiquity Lay-men were parties and assessors in the Consistory of the Church It was against their faith it was against their practice and those few pigmy objections out of Tertullian S. Ambrose and S. Austin using the word Seniores or Elders sometimes for Priests as being the Latine for the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for a secular Magistrate or Alderman for I think Saint Austin did so in his third Book against Cresconius are but like Sophoms to prove that two and two are not four for to pretend such slight aery imaginations against the constant known open Catholick practice and Doctrine of the Church and History of all ages is as if a man should go to fight an Imperial Army with a single bulrush They are not worth further considering * But this is That in this Question of Lay-Elders the Modern Arrians and Acephali do wholly mistake their own advantages For whatsoever they object out of Antiquity for the white and watery colours of Lay-Elders is either a very misprision of their allegations or else clearly abused in the use of them For now adayes they are only us'd to exclude and drive forth Episcopacy but then they misalledge Antiquity for the men with whose Heisers they would fain plough in this Question were themselves Bishops for the most part and he that was not would fain have been it is known so of Tertullian and therefore most certainly if they had spoken of Lay-Judges in Church matters which they never dream'd of yet meant them not so as to exclude Episcopacy and if not then the pretended allegations can do no service in the present Question I am only to clear this pretence from a place of Scripture totally misunderstood and then it cannot have any colour from any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either Divine or Humane but that Lay-Judges of causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither nam'd in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came even the Lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the nearest denomination The Objection is from Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially they that labour in the word and doctrine especially they therefore all Elders do not so Here are two sorts of Elders Preaching Ministers and Elders not Preachers Therefore Lay-Elders and yet all are Governours 1. But why therefore Lay-Elders Why may there not be diverse Church-officers and yet but one or two of them the Preacher Christ sent me not to Baptize but to Preach saith S. Paul and yet the commission of baptizate was as large as praedicate and why then might not another say Christ sent me not to Preach but to Baptize that is in S. Paul's sence not so much to do one as to do the other and if he left the ordinary ministration of Baptism and betook himself to the ordinary office of Preaching then to be sure some Minister must be the ordinary Baptizer and so not the Preacher for if he might be both ordinarily why was not Saint Paul both For though their power was common to all of the same Order yet the execution and dispensation of the Ministeries was according to several gifts and that of Prophecy or Preaching was not dispensed to all in so considerable a measure but that some of them might be destin'd to the ordinary execution of other Offices and yet because the gift of Prophecy was the greatest so also was the Office and therefore the sence of the words is this That all Presbyters must be honoured but especially they that Prophesie doing that office with an ordinary execution and ministery So no Lay-Elders yet Add to this that it is also plain that all the Clergy did not Preach Valerius Bishop of Hippo could not well skill in the Latine tongue being a Greek born
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
in the first three hundred years did theirs we can serve God in our houses and sometimes in Churches and our faith which was not built upon temporal foundations cannot be shaken by the convulsions of war and the changes of State But they who make our afflictions an objection against us unless they have a promise that they shall never be afflicted might do well to remember that if they ever fall into trouble they have nothing left to represent or make their condition tolerable for by pretending Religion is destroyed when it is persecuted they take away all that which can support their own Spirits and sweeten persecution However let our Church be where it pleases God it shall it is certain that Transubstantiation is an evil Doctrine false and dangerous and I know not any Church in Christendom which hath any Article more impossible or apt to render the Communion dangerous than this in the Church of Rome and since they command us to believe all or will accept none I hope the just reproof of this one will establish the minds of those who can be tempted to communicate with them in others I have now given an account of the reasons of my present engagement and though it may be enquired also why I presented it to You I fear I shall not give so perfect an account of it because those excellent reasons which invited me to this signification of my gratitude are such which although they ought to be made publick yet I know not whether your humility will permit it for you had rather oblige others than be noted by them Your Predecessor in the See of Rochester who was almost a Cardinal when he was almost dead did publickly in those evil times appear against the truth defended in this Book and yet he was more moderate and better tempered than the rest but because God hath put the truth into the hearts and mouths of his successors it is not improper that to you should be offered the opportunities of owning that which is the belief and honour of that See since the Religion was reformed But lest it be thought that this is an excuse rather than a reason of my address to you I must crave pardon of your humility and serve the end of glorification of God in it by acknowledging publickly that you have assisted my condition by the emanations of that grace which is the Crown of Martyrdom expending the remains of your lessened fortunes and increasing charity upon your Brethren who are dear to you not only by the band of the same Ministery but the fellowship of the same sufferings But indeed the cause in which these papers are ingaged is such that it ought to be owned by them that can best defend it and since the defence is not with secular arts and aids but by Spiritual the diminution of your outward circumstances cannot render you a person unfit to patronize this Book because where I fail your wisdom learning and experience can supply and therefore if you will pardon my drawing your name from the privacy of your retirement into a publick view you will singularly oblige and increase those favours by which you have already endeared the thankfulness and service of R. R. Your most affectionate and endeared Servant in the Lord Jesus JER TAYLOR A DISCOURSE OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST In the Holy Sacrament SECT I. State of the Question 1. THE Tree of Knowledge became the Tree of Death to us and the Tree of Life is now become an Apple of Contention The holy Symbols of the Eucharist were intended to be a contesseration and an union of Christian societies to God and with one another and the evil taking it disunites us from God and the evil understanding it divides us from each other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if men would but do reason there were in all Religion no article which might more easily excuse us from medling with questions about it than this of the holy Sacrament For as the man in Phaedrus that being asked what he carried hidden under his Cloak answered it was hidden under his Cloak meaning that he would not have hidden it but that he intended it should be secret so we may say in this mystery to them that curiously ask what or how it is Mysterium est it is a Sacrament and a Mystery by sensible instruments it consigns spiritual graces by the creatures it brings us to God by the body it ministers to the Spirit And that things of this nature are undiscernable secrets we may learn by the experience of those men who have in cases not unlike vainly laboured to tell us how the material fire of Hell should torment an immaterial soul and how baptismal water should cleanse the spirit and how a Sacrament should nourish a body and make it sure of the resurrection 2. It was happy with Christendom when she in this article retained the same simplicity which she always was bound to do in her manners and entercourse that is to believe the thing heartily and not to enquire curiously and there was peace in this Article for almost a thousand years together and yet that Transubstantiation was not determined I hope to make very evident In synaxi transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia diù satis erat credere sive sub pane consecrato sive quocunque modo adesse verum corpus Christi so said the great Erasmus It was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation for a long time together it did suffice to believe that the true body of Christ was present whether under the consecrated bread or any other way so the thing was believed the manner was not stood upon And it is a famous saying of Durandus Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus praesentiam credimus We hear the Word we perceive the Motion we know not the Manner but we believe the presence and Ferus of whom Sixtus Senensis affirms that he was vir nobiliter doctus pius eruditus hath these words Cum certum sit ibi esse corpus Christi quid opus est disputare num panis substantia maneat vel non When it is certain that Christs body is there what need we dispute whether the substance of bread remain or no and therefore Cutbert Tonstal Bishop of Duresme would have every one left to his conjecture concerning the manner De modo quo id fieret satius erat curiosum quemque relinquere suae conjecturae sicut liberum fuit ante Concilium Lateranum Before the Lateran Council it was free for every one to opine as they please and it were better it were so now But S. Cyril would not allow so much liberty not that he would have the manner determined but not so much as thought upon Firmam fidem mysteriis adhibentes nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud Quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus For if we go about to think it
or understand it we lose our labour Quomodo enim id fiat ne in mente intelligere nec linguâ dicere possumus sed silentio firmâ fide id suscipimus We can perceive the thing by faith but cannot express it in words nor understand it with our mind said S. Bernard Oportet igitur it is at last after the steps of the former progress come to be a duty nos in sumptionibus Divinorum mysteriorum indubitatam retinere fidem non quaerere quo pacto The summe is this The manner was defined but very lately there is no need at all to dispute it no advantages by it and therefore it were better it were left at liberty to every man to think as he please for so it was in the Church for above a thousand years together and yet it were better men would not at all trouble themselves concerning it for it 's a thing impossible to be understood and therefore it is not fit to be inquired after This was their sence and I suppose we do in no sence prevaricate their so pious and prudent counsel by saying the presence of Christ is reall and spirituall because this account does still leave the Article in his deepest mystery not only because spiritual formalities and perfections are undiscernable and incommensurable by natural proportions and the measures of our usual notices of things but also because the word spiritual is so general a term and operations so various and many by which the Spirit of God brings his purposes to pass and does his work upon the soul that we are in this specifick term very far from limiting the Article to a minute and special manner Our word of spiritual presence is particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner we say it is not this but it is to be understood figuratively that is not naturally but to the purposes and in the manner of the Spirit and spiritual things which how they operate or are effected we know no more than we know how a Cherubin sings or thinks or by what private conveyances a lost notion returns suddenly into our memory and stands placed in the eye of reason Christ is present spiritually that is by effect and blessing which in true speaking is rather the consequent of his presence than the formality For though we are taught and feel that yet this we profess we cannot understand and therefore curiously inquire not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Justin Martyr it is a manifest argument of infidelity to inquire concerning the things of God How or after what manner And in this it was that many of the Fathers of the Church laid their hands upon their mouths and revered the Mystery but like the remains of the sacrifice they burnt it that is as themselves expound the allegory it was to be adored by Faith and not to be discussed with reason knowing that as Solomon said Scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à gloriâ He that pries too far into the Majesty shall be confounded with the Glory 3. So far it was very well and if error or interest had not unravelled the secret and looked too far into the Sanctuary where they could see nothing but a cloud of fire Majesty and Secrecy indiscriminately mixt together we had kneeled before the same Altars and adored the same mystery and communicated in the same rites to this day For in the thing it self there is no difference amongst wise and sober persons nor ever was till the manner became an Article and declared or supposed to be of the substance of the thing But now the state of the question is this 4. The doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the holy mysteries hath ritely prayed and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine the symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ after a Sacramental that is in a spiritual real manner so that all that worthily communicate do by faith recive Christ really effectually to all the purposes of his passion The wicked receive not Christ but the bare symbols only but yet to their hurt because the offer of Christ is rejected and they pollute the blood of the Covenant by using it as an unholy thing The result of which doctrine is this It is bread and it is Christs body It is bread in substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed as the symbols are each as they can Christ as Christ can be given the bread and wine as they can and to the same real purposes to which they are designed and Christ does as really nourish and sanctifie the soul as the elements do the body It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural water becomes the laver of regeneration so here bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ but there and here too the first substance is changed by grace but remains the same in nature 5. That this is the doctrine of the Church of England is apparent in the Church Catechism affirming the inward part or thing signified by the consecrated bread and wine to be The body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and the benefit of it to be the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and the same is repeated severally in the exhortation and in the prayer of the address before the consecration in the Canon of our Communion verily and indeed is reipsâ that 's really enough that 's our sence of the Real Presence and Calvin affirms as much saying In the Supper Christ Jesus viz. his body and blood is truly given under the signs of bread and wine And Gregory de Valentiâ gives this account of the doctrine of the Protestants that although Christ be corporally in Heaven yet is he received of the faithful communicants in this Sacrament truly both spiritually by the mouth of the mind through a most near conjunction of Christ with the soul of the receiver by faith and also sacramentally with the bodily mouth c. And which is the greatest testimony of all we who best know our own minds declare it to be so 6. Now that the spiritual is also a real presence and that they are hugely consistent is easily credible to them that believe that the gifts of the holy Ghost are real graces and a Spirit is a proper substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are amongst the Hellenists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intelligible things or things discerned by the mind of a man are more truly and really such and of a more excellent substance and reality than things only sensible And therefore when things spiritual are signified by materials the thing under the figure is called true
sufficient in this excuse For if eating Christ by faith be a thing of all times then it is also of the future and no difference of time is so apt to express an Eternal truth as is the future which is alwayes in flux and potential signification But the secret of the thing was this the Arguments against the sacramental sence of these words drawn from the following verses between this and the 51. verse could not so well be answered and therefore Bellarmine found out the trick of confessing all till you come thither as appears in his Answer to the ninth Argument that of some Catholicks However as to the Article I am to say these things 1. That very many of the most learned Romanists affirm that in this Chapter Christ does not speak of sacramental or oral manducation or of the Sacrament at all Johannes de Ragusio Biel Cusanus Ruard Tapper Cajetan Hessels Jansenius Waldensis Armachanus save only that Bellarmine going to excuse it sayes in effect that they did not do it very honestly for he affirms that they did it that they might confute the Hussites and the Lutherans about the Communion under both kinds and if it be so and not be so as it may serve a turn It is so for Transubstantiation and it is not so for the half Communion we have but little reason to rely upon their judgment or candor in any exposition of Scripture But it is no new thing for some sort of men to do so The Heretick Severus in Anastasius Sinaita maintained it lawful and even necessary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to occasions and emergent heresies to alter and change the Doctrines of Christ and the Cardinal of Cusa affirmed it lawful diversly to expound the Scriptures according to the times So that we know what precedents and authorities they can urge for so doing and I doubt not but it is practised too often since it was offered to be justified by Dureus against Whitaker 2. These great Clerks had reason to expound it not to be meant of sacramental manducation to avoid the unanswerable Argument against their half Communion for so Christ said Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you It is therefore as necessary to drink the Chalice as to eat the Bread and we perish if we omit either And their new whimsie of Concomitancy will not serve the turn because there it is sanguis effusus that is sacramentally powred forth blood that is powred forth not that is in the body 2. If it were in the body yet a man by no concomitancy can be said to drink what he only eats 3. If in the Sacramental body Christ gave the blood by concomitancy then he gave the blood twice which to what purpose it might be done is not yet revealed 4. If the blood be by concomitancy in the body then so is the body with the blood and then it will be sufficient to drink the Chalice without the Host as to eat the Host without the Chalice and then we must drink his Flesh as well as eat his Blood which if we could suppose to be possible yet the precept of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood were not observed by drinking that which is to be eaten and eating that which is to be drunk But certainly they are fine Propositions which cannot be true unless we can eat our drink and drink our meat unless bread be wine and wine be bread or to speak in their stile unless the body be the blood and the blood the body that is unless each of the two Symboles be the other as much as it self as much that which it is not as that which it is And this thing their own Pope Innocentius the third and from him Vasquez noted and Salmeron who affirmed that Christ commanded the manner as well as the thing and that without eating and drinking the precept of Christ is not obeyed 3. But whatever can come of this yet upon the account of these words so expounded by some of the Fathers concerning oral manducation and potation they believed themselves bound by the same necessity to give the Eucharist to Infants as to give them Baptism and did for above seven Ages together practise it And let these men that will have these words spoken of the Eucharist answer the Argument Bellarmine is troubled with it and instead of answering increases the difficulty and concludes firmly against himself saying If the words be understood of eating Christ's body spiritually or by faith it will be more impossible to Infants for it is easier to give them intinctum panem bread dipt in the Chalice than to make them believe To this I reply that therefore it is spoken to Infants in neither sence neither is any law at all given to them and no laws can be understood as obligatory to them in that capacity But then although I have answered the Argument because I believe it not to be meant in the Sacramental sence to any nor in the Spiritual sence to them yet Bellarmine hath not answered the pressure that lies upon his cause For since it is certain and he confesses it that it is easier that is it is possible to give Infants the Sacrament it follows that if here the Sacrament be meant Infants are obliged that is the Church is obliged to minister it as well as Baptism there being in vertue of these words the same necessity and in the nature of the thing the same possibility of their receiving it But then on the other side no inconvenience can press our interpretation of spiritual eating Christ by faith because it being naturally impossible that Infants should believe they cannot be concerned in an impossible Commandment So that we can answer Saint Austin's and Innocentius his Arguments for communicating of Infants but they cannot 4. If these words be understood of Sacramental manducation then no man can be saved but he that receives the holy Sacrament For unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you if it be answered that the holy Sacrament must be eaten in act or in desire I reply that is not true because if a Catechumen desires Baptism only in the Article of his death it is sufficient to salvation and they dare not deny it 2. Fools young persons they that are surprised with sudden death cannot be thought to perish for want of the actual susception or desire 3. There is nothing in the words that can warrant or excuse the actual omission of the Sacrament and it is a strange deception that these men suffer by misunderstanding this distinction of receiving the Sacrament either in act or desire For they are not opposite but subordinate members differ only as act and disposition and this disposition is not at all required but as it
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
esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and whatever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the Promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubioâ—â— disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius That this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more ado it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more disreputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause Iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to Saint Ambrose and to Saint Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no Sacrifice but the memory of a Sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These Instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses and razing the Records of Antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if
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
after absolution they never impos'd or oblig'd to punishment unless it were to sick persons of whose recovery they despaired not of them indeed in case they had not finished their Canonical punishments they expected they should perform what was injoyn'd them formerly But because all sin is a blot to a mans soul and a foul stain to his reputation we demand In what does this stain consist in the guilt or in the punishment If it be said that it consists in the punishment then what does the guilt signifie when the removing of it does neither remove the stain nor the punishment which both remain and abide together But if the stain and the guilt be all one or alwayes together then when the guilt is taken away there can no stain remain and if so what need is there any more of Purgatory For since this is pretended to be necessary only lest any stain'd or unclean thing should enter into Heaven if the guilt and the pain be removed what uncleanness can there be left behind Indeed Simon Magus as Epiphanius reports Haeres 20. did teach That after the death of the body there remain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a purgation of souls But whether the Church of Rome will own him for an Authentick Doctor themselves can best tell 3. It relies upon this also That God requires of us a full exchange of penances and satisfactions which must regularly be paid here or hereafter even by them who are pardon'd here which if it were true we were all undone 4. That the death of Christ his Merits and Satisfaction do not procure for us a full remission before we dye nor as it may happen of a long time after All which being Propositions new and uncertain invented by the School Divines and brought ex post facto to dress this Opinion and make it to seem reasonable and being the products of ignorance concerning remission of sins by Grace of the righteousness of Faith and the infinite value of Christ's Death must needs lay a great prejudice of novelty upon the Doctrine it self which but by these cannot be supported But to put it past suspicion and conjectures Roffensis and Polydor Virgil affirm That who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory and that the Latine Fathers did not all believe it but by degrees came to entertain opinions of it But for the Catholick Church it was but lately known to her But before we say any more in this Question we are to premonish That there are two great causes of their mistaken pretensions in this Article from Antiquity The first is That the Ancient Churches in their Offices and the Fathers in their Writings did teach and practise respectively prayer for the dead Now because the Church of Rome does so too and more than so relates her prayers to the Doctrine of Purgatory and for the souls there detaind her Doctors vainly suppose that when ever the Holy Fathers speak of prayer for the dead that they conclude for Purgatory which vain conjecture is as false as it is unreasonable For it is true the Fathers did pray for the dead but how That God would shew them mercy and hasten the Resurrection and give a blessed Sentence in the great day But then it is also to be remembred that they made prayers and offered for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory even for the Patriarchs and Prophets for the Apostles and Evangelists for Martyrs and Confessors and especially for the blessed Virgin Mary So we find it in Epiphanius Saint Cyril and in the Canon of the Greeks and so it is acknowledged by their own Durandus and in their Mass-book anciently they prayed for the soul of Saint Leo Of which because by their latter Doctrines they grew asham'd they have chang'd the prayer for him into a prayer to God by the intercession of Saint Leo in behalf of themselves so by their new doctrine making him an Intercessor for us who by their old Doctrine was suppos'd to need our prayers to intercede for him of which Pope Innocent being askâ—d a reason makes a most pitiful excuse Upon what accounts the Fathers did pray for the Saints departed and indeed generally for all it is not now seasonable to discourse but to say this only that such general prayers for the dead as those above reckon'd the Church of England never did condemn by any express Article but left it in the middle and by her practice declares her faith of the Resurrection of the dead and her interest in the communion of Saints and that the Saints departed are a portion of the Catholick Church parts and members of the Body of Christ but expresly condemns the Doctrine of Purgatory and consequently all prayers for the dead relating to it And how vainly the Church of Rome from prayer for the dead infers the belief of Purgatory every man may satisfie himself by seeing the Writings of the Fathers where they cannot meet with one Collect or Clause for praying for the delivery of souls out of that imaginary place Which thing is so certain that in the very Roman Offices we mean the Vigils said for the dead which are Psalms and Lessons taken from the Scripture speaking of the miseries of this World Repentance and Reconciliation with God the bliss after this life of them that die in Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead and in the Anthems Versicles and Responses there are Prayers made recommending to God the Soul of the newly defunct praying he may be freed from Hell and eternal death that in the day of Judgment he be not judged and condemned according to his sins but that he may appear among the Elect in the glory of the Resurrection but not one word of Purgatory or its pains The other cause of their mistake is That the Fathers often speak of a fire of Purgation after this life but such a one that is not to be kindled until the day of Judgment and it is such a fire that destroyes the Doctrine of the intermedial Purgatory We suppose that Origen was the first that spoke plainly of it and so Saint Ambrose follows him in the Opinion for it was no more so does Saint Basil Saint Hilary Saint Hierom and Lactantius as their words plainly prove as they are cited by Sixtus Senensis affirming that all men Christ only excepted shall be burned with the fire of the worlds conflagration at the day of Judgment even the Blessed Virgin her self is to pass through this fire There was also another Doctrine very generally receiv'd by the Fathers which greatly destroyes the Roman Purgatory Sixtus Senensis sayes and he sayes very true that Justin Martyr Tertullian Victorinus Martyr Prudentius Saint Chrysostom Arethas Euthimius and Saint Bernard did all affirm that before the day of Judgment the souls of men are
kept in secret receptacles reserved unto the sentence of the great day and that before then no man receives according to his works done in this life We do not interpose in this Opinion to say that it is true or false probable or improbable for these Fathers intended it not as a matter of faith or necessary belief so far as we find But we observe from hence that if their opinion be true then the Doctrine of Purgatory is false If it be not true yet the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory which is inconsistent with this so generally receiv'd Opinion of the Fathers is at least new no Catholick Doctrine not belived in the Primitive Church and therefore the Roman Writers are much troubled to excuse the Fathers in this Article and to reconcile them to some seeming concord with their new Doctrine But besides these things it is certain that the Doctrine of Purgatory before the day of Judgment in Saint Augustine's time was not the Doctrine of the Church it was not the Catholick Doctrine for himself did doubt of it Whether it be so or not it may be inquired and possibly it may be found so and possibly it may never so Saint Augustine In his time therefore it was no Doctrine of the Church and it continued much longer in uncertainty for in the time of Otho Frisingensis who liv'd in the year 1146. it was gotten no further than to a Quidam asserunt some do affirm that there is a place of Purgatory after death And although it is not to be denied but that many of the ancient Doctors had strange Opinions concerning Purgations and Fires and Intermedial states and common Receptacles and liberations of Souls and Spirits after this life yet we can truly affirm it and can never be convinc'd to erre in this affirmation that there is not any one of the Ancients within five hundred years whose opinion in this Article throughout the Church of Rome at this day follows But the people of the Roman Communion have been principally led into a belief of Purgatory by their fear and by their credulity they have been softned and intic'd into this belief by perpetual tales and legends by which they lov'd to be abus'd To this purpose their Priests and Friers have made great use of the apparition of Saint Hierom after death to Eusebius commanding him to lay his fack upon the corps of three dead men that they arising from death might confess Purgatory which formerly they had denied The story is written in an Epistle imputed to Saint Cyril but the ill luck of it was that Saint Hierom out-lived Saint Cyril and wrote his life and so confuted that story but all is one for that they believe it nevertheless But there are enough to help it out and if they be not firmly true yet if they be firmly believ'd all is well enough In the Speculum exemplorum it is said That a certain Priest in an extasie saw the soul of Constantinus Turritanus in the eves of his house tormented with frosts and cold rains and afterwards climbing up to Heaven upon a shining Pillar And a certain Monk saw some souls roasted upon spits like Pigs and some Devils basting them with scalding Lard but a while after they were carried to a cool place and so prov'd Purgatory But Bishop Theobald standing upon a piece of Ice to cool his feet was nearer Purgatory than he was aware and was convinc'd of it when he heard a poor soul telling him that under that Ice he was tormented and that he should be delivered if for thirty dayes continual he would say for him thirty Masses and some such thing was seen by Conrade and Vdalric in a Pool of water For the place of Purgatory was not yet resolv'd on till Saint Patrick had the key of it delivered to him which when one Nicholas borrowed of him he saw as strange and true things there as ever Virgil dreamed of in his Purgatory or Cicero in his dream of Scipio or Plato in his Gorgias or Phaedo who indeed are the surest Authors to prove Purgatory But because to preach false stories was forbidden by the Council of Trent there are yet remaining more certain Arguments even revelations made by Angels and the testimony of Saint Odilio himself who heard the Devil complain and he had great reason surely that the souls of dead men were daily snatch'd out of his hands by the Alms and Prayers of the living and the Sister of Saint Damianus being too much pleas'd with hearing of a Piper told her Brother that she was to be tormented for fifteen dayes in Purgatory We do not think that the wise men in the Church of Rome believe these Narratives for if they did they were not wise But this we know that by such stories the people were brought into a belief of it and having served their turn of them the Master-builders used them as false Arches and Centries taking them away when the parts of the building were made firm and stable by Authority But even the better sort of them do believe them or else they do worse for they urge and cite the Dialogues of Saint Gregory the Oration of Saint John Damascen de Defunctis the Sermons of Saint Augustine upon the Feast of the Commemoration of All-souls which nevertheless was instituted after Saint Augustine's death and divers other citations which the Greeks in their Apology call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holds and the Castles the corruptions and insinuations of Heretical persons But in this they are the less to be blamed because better Arguments than they have no men are tied to make use of But against this way of proceeding we think fit to admonish the people of our charges that besides that the Scriptures expresly forbid us to enquire of the dead for truth the Holy Doctors of the Church particularly Tertullian Saint Athanasius Saint Chrysostom Isidor and Theophylact deny that the souls of the dead ever do appear and bring many reasons to prove that it is unfitting they should saying If they did it would be the cause of many errors and the Devils under that pretence might easily abuse the World with notices and revelations of their own and because Christ would have us content with Moses and the Prophets and especially to hear that Prophet whom the Lord our God hath raised up amongst us our blessed Jesus who never taught any such Doctrine to his Church But because we are now representing the Novelty of this Doctrine and proving that anciently it was not the Doctrine of the Church nor at all esteemed a matter of Faith whether there was or was not any such place or state we add this That the Greek Church did alwayes dissent from the Latins in this particular since they had forg'd this new Doctrine in the Laboratories of Rome and in the Council of Basil publish'd an Apology directly disapproving the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory How afterwards they
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
but the confession and acknowledgment of the greatest Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus sayes that before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was not an Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses and and Henriquez affirms that Scotus sayes it was not ancient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of ignorance saying he talk'd at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory the Seventh nor that consent of Fathers which to so little purpose he had heap'd together Rem transubstantiationis Patres ne attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuits in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touch'd or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation and in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or a Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confess'd He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these If it be inquir'd what kind of conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it Only I know that it is not formal because the same accidents remain the same colour and taste To some it seems to be substantial saying that so the substance is chang'd into the substance that it is done essentially To which the former Authorities seem to consent But to this sentence others oppose these things If the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Blood of Christ then every day some substance is made the Body or Blood of Christ which before was not the body and to day something is Christ's Body which yesterday was not and every day Christ's Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the Conception These are his words which we have remark'd not only for the Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written but about fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran Council and therefore it made haste in so short time to pass from a disputable Opinion to an Article of Faith But even after the Council Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintain'd that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd And although he sayes that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it should be Christ's Body and yet the matter of bread remain and if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of bread does not remain But here his reason was overcome by authority and he durst not affirm that of which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account But by this it appears that the Opinion was but then in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain according to that old Distich Corpore de Christi lis est de sanguine lis est Déque modo lis est non habitura modum And the Opinion was not determin'd in the Lateran as it is now held at Rome but it is also plain that it is a stranger to Antiquity De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in Antiquis scriptoribus mentio said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of transubstantiating the bread into Christ's Body We know the modesty and interest of the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it There was no mention at all of this Article in the Primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be deny'd by any sober person who considers That it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerous times and argued and unsetled almost 1300. years after Christ. And that it was so will but too evidently appear by that stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law For Berengarius was by Pope Nicolaus commanded to recant his error in these words and to affirm Verum corpus sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solùm in sacramento sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before an hundred and fourteen Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet at this day it is renounc'd by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded sayes the Gloss will lead into a heresie greater than what Berengarius was commanded to renounce and no interpretation can make it tolerable but such an one as is in another place of the Canon Law Statuimus i. e. abrogamus nothing but a plain denying it in the sence of Pope Nicolas But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reprov'd but being asham'd and disputed into a more sober understanding of their hypothesis spake more warily but yet differently from what they said at first so it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sence to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best Ages of the Church these following testimonies do make evident The words of Tertullian are these The bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying This is my Body that is the figure of my Body SECT II. Of PVRGATORY THAT the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus à Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholick verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum
and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their Prayers and Oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prayes for one sort and only gives thanks for the other as these Gentlemen the Objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the Righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent To which greater light is given by the words of Saint Austin Who is he for whom no man prayes but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of Saint Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his Adversary or for his own cause Saint Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice If Saint Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the Militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful Sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak Argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the Memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of Saint Cyril are very plain The third Allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confessâ—d even by these Gentlemen the Objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the Letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of Saint James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted Saint James and I wonder that he should urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own Allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and Saint Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the Land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the Letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sence and practice of the Greek Canon in this Question And first for Saint James his Liturgy which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of Saint James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine Sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the Region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually shines In the Liturgy of Saint Basil which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this Prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for Religion and have fed thy holy Flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of
thanks for them or praying to them but a direct praying for them even for holy Bishops Confessors Martyrs that God meaning in much mercy would remember them that is make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham in the Region of the living as Saint James expresses it And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to Saint Basil Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Cyril the Churches pray Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning our Holy Fathers the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs Confessors Preachers Evangelists and all the Souls of the Just which have died in the faith but chiefly of the holy glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God of Saint John Baptist the Forerunner and Martyr Saint Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr Saint Mark Apostle Evangelist and Martyr Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy Offices of Priesthood For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy House and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou lover of men pardon them And again Moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in Faith our Ancestors Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary and after concludes with this prayer Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them Add to these if you please the Greek Mass of Saint Peter To them O Lord and to all that rest in Christ we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory To these add the Doctrine and Practice of the Greek Fathers Dionysius speaking of a person deceased whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pronounced to be a happy man and verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world yet the Bishop prayed for him That God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place To the same purpose is that of Saint Gregory Nazianzen in his Funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new created soul yet he presently prayes for his soul Now O Lord receive Caesarius I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church their Doctrine and practice in this particular and I desire it may be observed that there is no greater testimony of the Doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy Their Doctors may have private Opinions which are not against the Doctrine of the Church but what is put into their publick devotions and consign'd in their Liturgies no man scruples it but it is the Confession and Religion of the Church But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling Objections of these Roman Adversaries and my Defences I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew that they would not have oppos'd my Affirmation in this particular if they had understood their own Mass-book for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent And in the very Canon of the Mass which these Gentlemen I suppose if they be Priests cannot be ignorant in any part of they pray Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei dormiunt in somno pacis Ipsis Domine omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii lucis pacis ut indulgeas deprecamur Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory it is plain that the Church of Rome prayes for Saints who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful but I summ up this particular with the words of Saint Austin Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia The Church prayes for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholick Faith And therefore I wonder how it should drop from Saint Austin's Pen Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them as if they were in an uncertain state and so it is probable enough but else his words were not only against himself in other places but against the whole practice of the Ancient Catholick Church I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons why the Prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec prosit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the Authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prayes for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the Mass-books and prayer for the soul of Saint Leo was chang'd into a prayer to Saint Leo and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to
be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for Saint Leo put in again That by these offices of holy attonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another Argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick Doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme Heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word but have left the whole fabrick of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great Authorities only one of them striving to find some fault sayes that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the Doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own Authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this Decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that Opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the Opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Vndequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of Antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he sayes that Pope Benedict the Eleventh affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the Decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the Acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the Decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the Doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors care not what they say insomuch that Saint Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the House of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this Opinion But that the present Doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new Article of Faith is therefore certain because it was no Article of Faith in Saint Austin's time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of Saint Austin The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. Chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best Armour in which they trusted and expounds the words of Saint Paul He shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which Saint Austin sayes is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to be so or it may never be found but lie hid then words signifie nothing yea but the doubting of Saint Austin does not relate to the matter or question of Purgatory but to the manner of the particular punishment viz. Whether or no that pain of being troubled for the loss of their goods be not a part of the Purgatory flames sayes E. W. A goodly excuse as if Saint Austin had troubled himself with such an impertinent Question whether the poor souls in their infernal flames be not troubled that they left their lands and money behind them Indeed it is possible they might wish some of the waters of their Springs or Fish-ponds to cool their tongues but Saint Austin surely did not suspect that the tormented Ghosts were troubled they had not brought their best clothes with them and money in their purses This is too pitiful and strain'd an Answer the case being so evidently clear that the thing Saint Austin doubted of was since there was to some of the faithful who yet were too voluptuous or covetous persons a Purgatory in this world even the loss of their Goods which they so lov'd and therefore being lost so grieved for whether or no they should not also meet with another Purgatory after death that is whether besides the punishment suffered here they should not be punish'd after death how by grieving for the loss
of their Goods Ridiculous What then Saint Austin himself tells us by so much as they lov'd their goods more or less by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd And what he said of this kind of sin viz. too much worldliness with the same Reason he might suppose of others this he thought possible but of this he was not sure and therefore it was not then an Article of Faith and though now the Church of Rome hath made it so yet it appears that it was not so from the beginning but is part of their new fashion'd faith And E. W. striving so impossibly and so weakly to avoid the pressure of this Argument should do well to consider whether he have not more strained his Conscience than the words of Saint Austin But this matter must not pass thus Saint Austin repeats this whole passage verbatim in his Answer to the 8. Quest. of Dulcitius Quest. 1. and still answers in this and other appendant Questions of the same nature viz. Whether Prayers for the dead be available c. Quest. 2. And whether upon the instant of Christ's appearing he will pass to judgment Quest 3. In these things which we have describ'd our and the infirmity of others may be so exercis'd and instructed nevertheless that they pass not for Canonical Authority And in the Answer to the first Question he speaks in the style of a doubtful person Whether men suffer such things in this life only or also such certain judgments follow even after this life this Understanding of this sentence is not as I suppose abhorrent from truth The same words he also repeats in his Book de fide operibus Chap. 16. There is yet another place of S. Austin in which it is plain he still is a doubting person in the Question of Purgatory His sence is this After the death of the body until the resurrection if in the interval the spirits of the dead are said to suffer that kind of fire which they feel not who had not such manners and loves in their life-time that their wood hay and stubble ought to be consum'd but others feel who brought such buildings along with them whether there only or whether here and there or whether therefore here that it might not be there that they feel a fire of a transitory tribulation burning their secular buildings though escaping from damnation I reprove it not for peradventure it is true So Saint Austin's peradventure yea is alwayes peradventure nay and will the Bigots of the Roman Church be content with such a confession of faith as this of Saint Austin in the present Article I believe not But now after all this I will not deny but Saint Austin was much inclin'd to believe Purgatory fire and therefore I shall not trouble my self to answer the citations to that purpose which Bellarmine and from him these Transcribers bring out of this Father though most of them are drawn out of Apocryphal spurious and suspected pieces as his Homilies de S. S. c. yet that which I urge is this that Saint Austin did not esteem this to be a Doctrine of the Church no Article of Faith but a disputable Opinion and yet though he did incline to the wrong part of the Opinion yet it is very certain that he sometimes speaks expresly against this Doctrine and other times speaks things absolutely inconsistent with the Opinion of Purgatory which is more than an Argument of his confessed doubting for it is a declaration that he understood nothing certain in this affair but that the contrary to his Opinion was the more probable And this appears in these few following words Saint Austin hath these words Some suffer temporary punishments in this life only others after death others both now and then Bellarmine and from him Diaphanta urges this as a great proof of Saint Austin's Doctrine But he destroyes it in the words immediately following and makes it useless to the hypothesis of the Roman Church This shall be before they suffer the last and severest judgment meaning as Saint Austin frequently does such sayings of the General conflagration at the end of the world But whether he does so or no yet he adds But all of them come not into the everlasting punishments which after the Judgment shall be to them who after death suffer the temporary By which Doctrine of Saint Austin viz. that those who are in his Purgatory shall many of them be damn'd and the temporary punishments after death do but usher in the Eternal after judgment he destroyes the salt of the Roman fire who imagines that all that go to Purgatory shall be sav'd Therefore this testimony of Saint Austin as it is nothing for the avail of the Roman Purgatory so by the appendage it is much against it which Coquaeus Torrensis and especially Cardinal Perron observing have most violently corrupted these words by falsely translating them So Perron Tous ceux qui souffrent des peines temporelles apres lâ— mort ne viennent pas aux peines Eternelles qui auront tien apres le judgement which reddition is expresly against the sence of Saint Austin's words 2. But another hypothesis there is in Saint Austin to which without dubitation he does peremptorily adhere which I before intimated viz. that although he admit of Purgatory pains after this life yet none but such as shall be at the day of Judgment Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil unto Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of Judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sence All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer than that Saint Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his Opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else
can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. Saint Austin speaks things expresly against the Doctrine of Purgatory Know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of Saint Austin if he be Author of that excellent Book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that Saint Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one Objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things Saint Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirits suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the Article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore Saint Austin in this Article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have provâ—d 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old Books of Bruges and Colein nor in the Copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus Vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this Objection being remov'd there remains no ground to deny that Saint Austin was a doubting person in the Article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus à Castro and by Barnesius Well! but suppose Saint Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as Saint Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my Adversaries objects To which I answer That the Church of England may the rather condemn it because Saint Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholick Doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the Faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the Doctrine if it had been left as Saint Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain Opinion but when the wrong end of the Opinion was taken and made an Article of Faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than Saint Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which Saint Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating Infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisingensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of Judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd sayes E. W. and the rest of the Adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be savâ—d are either affected afficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this Opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment Juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendam ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the Opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he sayes some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origen's Opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many Ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermin'd in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman Doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of Infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment
But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholicks did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this Article and they that differ in their judgments about an Article and yet esteem the others Catholick may think what they please but they Cannot tell certainly what is truth But then as for Peter Lombard himself all that I said of him was this that he could not tell he could not determine whether there was any substantial change or no. If in his after discourse he declares that the change is of substances he told it for no other than as a meer opinion if he did let him answer for that not I for that he could not determine it himself expresly said it in the beginning of the eleventh distinction And therefore these Gentlemen would better have consulted with truth and modesty if they had let this alone and not have made such an outcry against a manifest truth Now let me observe one thing which will be of great use in this whole affair and demonstrate the cange of this doctrine These three opinions were all held by Catholicks and the opinions are recorded not only by Pope Innocentius 3. but in the Gloss of the Canon Law it self For this opinion was not fix'd and setled nor as yet well understood but still disputed as we see in Lombard and Scotus And although they all agreed in this as Salmeron observes of these three opinions as he cites them out of Scotus that the true body of Christ is there because to deny this were against the faith and therefore this was then enough to cause them to be esteem'd Catholicks because they denied nothing which was then against the â—aith but all agreed in that yet now the case is otherwise for whereas one of the opinions was that the substance of bread remains and another opinion that the substance of bread is annihilated but is not converted into the body of Christ now both of these opinions are made heresie and the contrary to them which is the third opinion pass'd into an article of faith Quod vero ibi substantia panis non remanet jam etiam ut articulus fidei definitum est conversionis sive transubstantiationis nomen evictum So Salmeron Now in Peter Lombards time if they who believed Christs real presence were good Catholicks though they believed no Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation that is did not descend into consideration of the manner why may they not be so now Is there any new revelation now of the manner Or why is the way to Heaven now made narrower than in Lombards time For the Church of England believes according to one of these opinions and therefore is as good a Catholick Church as Rome was then which had not determined the manner Nay if we use to value an Article the more by how much the more Ancient it is certainly it is more honourable that we should reform to the Ancient model rather than conform to the new However this is also plainly consequent to this discourse of Salmeron The abettâ—râ— of those three opinions some of them do deny something that is of faith therefore the faith of the Church of Rome now is not the same it was in the days of Peter Lombard Lastly this also is to be remark'd that to prove any ancient Author to hold the doctrine of Transubstantiation as it is at this day an Article of faith at Rome it is not enough to say that Peter Lombard or Durand or Scotus c. did say that where bread was before there is Christs body now for they may say that and more and yet not come home to the present Article and therefore E. W. does argue weakly when he denies Lombard to say one thing viz. that he could not define whether there was a substantial change or no which indeed he spake plainly because he brings him saying something as if he were resolv'd the change were substantial which yet he speaks but obscurely And the truth is this question of Transubstantiation is so intricate and involved amongst them seems so contrary to sense and reason and does so much violence to all the powers of the soul that it is no wonder if at first the Doctors could not make any thing distinctly of it However whatever they did make of it certain it is they more agreed with the present Church of England than with the present Church of Rome for we say as they said Christs body is truly there and there is a conversion of the Elements into Christs body for what before the Consecration in all sences was bread is after Consecration in some sence Christs body but they did not all of them say that the substance of bread was destroyed and some of them denied the conversion of the bread into the flesh of Christ which whosoever shall now do will be esteemed no Roman Catholick And therefore it is a vain procedure to think they have prov'd their doctrine of Transubstantiation out of the Fathers also if the Fathers tell us That bread is chang'd out of his nature into the body of Christ that by holy invocation it is no more common bread that as water in Cana of Galilee was chang'd into wine so in the Evangelist wine is changed into blood That bread is only bread before the sacramental words but after consecration is made the body of Christ. For though I very much doubt all these things in equal and full measures cannot be prov'd out of the Fathers yet suppose they were yet all this comes not up to the Roman
Innocentius Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it And for his own particular though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council yet he himself said that before that Council it was no article of faith and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him and imputes ignorance to him saying that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. nor the consent of the Fathers And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez saying that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus But I desire him to look once more and my Margent will better direct him What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question if these Gentlemen will not believe me let them believe their own friends But first let it be consider'd what I said viz. that he maintain'd viz. in disputation that even after consecration the very matter of bread remain'd 2. That by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held 3. That nevertheless it is possible it should be so 4. That it is no contradiction that the matter of bread should remain and yet it be Christs body too 5. That this were the easier way of solving the difficulties That all this is true I have no better argument than his own words which are in his first question of the eleventh distinction in quartum num 11. n. 15. For indeed the case was very hard with these learned men who being pressed by authority did bite the file and submitted their doctrine but kept their reason to themselves and what some in the Council of Trent observed of Scotus was true also of Durandus and divers other Schoolmen with whom it was usual to deny things with a kind of courtesie And therefore Durandus in the places cited though he disputes well for his opinion yet he says the contrary is modus tenendus de facto But besides that his words are as I understand them plain and clear to manifest his own hearty perswasion yet I shall not desire to be believed upon my own account for fear I be mistaken but that I had reason to say it Henriquez shall be my warrant Durandus dist qu. 3. ait esse probabile sed absque assertione c. He saith it is probable but without assertion that in the Eucharist the same matter of bread remains without quantity And a little after he adds out of Cajetan Paludanus and Soto that this opinion of Durandus is erroneous but after the Council of Trent it seems to be heretical And yet he says it was held by Aegidius and Euthymius who had the good luck it seems to live and die before the Council of Trent otherwise they had been in danger of the inquisition for heretical pravity But I shall not trouble my self further in this particular I am fully vindicated by Bellarmine himself who spends a whole Chapter in the confutation of this error of Durandus viz. that the matter of bread remains he endeavours to answer his arguments and gives this censure of him Itaque sententia Durandi hâ—retica est Therefore the sentence of Durandus is heretical although he be not to be called a heretick because he was ready to acquiesce in the judgment of the Church So Bellarmine who if he say true that Durandus was ready to submit to the judgment of the Church then he does not say true when he says the Church before his time had determined against him but however that I said true of him when I imputed this opinion to him Bellarmine is my witness Thus you see I had reason for what I said and by these instances it appears how hardly and how long the doctrine of Transubstantiation was before it could be swallowed But I remember that Salmeron tells of divers who distrusting of Scripture and reason had rather in this point rely upon the tradition of the Fathers and therefore I descended to take from them this armour in which they trusted And first to ease a more curious inquiry which in a short dissuasive was not convenient I us'd the abbreviature of an adversaries confession For Alphonsus à Castro confess'd that in Ancient writers there is seldome any mention made of Transubstantiation one of my adversaries says this is not spoken of the thing but of the name of Transubstantiation but if à Castro meant this only of the word he spake weakly when he said that the name or word was seldom mention'd by the Ancients 1. Because it is false that it was seldom mention'd by the Ancients for the word was by the Ancient Fathers never mention'd 2. Because there was not any question of the word where the thing was agreed and therefore as this saying so understood had been false so also if it had been true it would have been impertinent 3. It is but a trifling artifice to confess the name to be unknown and by that means to insinuate that the thing was then under other names It is a secret cosenage of an unwary Reader to bribe him into peace and contentedness for the main part of the Question by pleasing him in that part which it may be makes the biggest noise though it be less material 4. If the thing had been mentioned by the Ancients they need not would not ought not to have troubled themselves and others by a new word to have still retained the old proposition under the old words would have been less suspicious more prudent and ingenious but to bring in a new name is but the cover for a new doctrine and therefore S. Paul left an excellent precept to the Church to avoid prophanas vocum novitates the prophane newness of words that is it is fit that the mysteries revealed in Scripture should be preached and taught in the words of the Scripture and with that simplicity openness easiness and candor and not with new and unhallowed words such as is that of Transubstantiation 5. A Castro did not speak of the name alone but of the thing also de transubstantiatione panis in Corpus Christi of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body of this manner of conversion that is of this doctrine now doctrines consist not in words but things however his last words are faint and weak and guilty for being convinc'd of the weakness of his defence of the thing he left to himself a subterfuge of words But let it be how it will with à Castro whom I can very well spare if he will not be allowed to speak sober sence and as a wise man should we have better and fuller testimonies in this affair That the Fathers did not so much as touch the matter or thing of Transubstantiation said the Jesuits in prison as is
true horse do and yet the painted man is no man and the painted horse is no horse The effect of which discourse is this that the worship of images is but the image of worship hypocrisie and dissimulation all the way nothing real but imaginative and phantastical and indeed though this gives but a very ill account of the agreement of Bellarmine with their Saints Thomas and Bonaventure yet it is the best way to avoid idolatry because they give no real worship to images But then on the other side how do they mock God and Christ by offering to them that which is nothing by pretending to honour them by honouring their images when the honour they do give to images is it self but imaginary and no more of reality in it than there is of humane Nature in the picture of a man However if you will not commit down-right idolatry as some of their Saints teach you then you must be careful to observe these plain distinctions and first be sure to remember that when you worship an image you do it not materially but formally not as it is of such a substance but as it is a sign next take care that you observe what sort of image it is and then proportion your right kind to it that you do not give latria to that where hyperdulia is only due and be careful that if dulia only be due that your worship be not hyperdulical In the next place consider that the worship to your image is intransitive but in few cases and according but to a few Doctors and therefore when you have got all these cases together be sure that in all other cases it be transitive But then when the worship is pass'd on to the Exemplar you must consider that if it be of the same kind with that which is due to the Example yet it must be an imperfect piece of worship though the kind be perfect and that it is but analogical and it is reductive and it is not absolute not simple not by it self not by an act to the image distinct from that which is to the Example but one and the same individual act with one intention as to the supreme kind though with some little variety if the kinds be differing Now by these easie ready clear and necessary distinctions and rules and cases the people being fully and perfectly instructed there is no possibility that the worship of images should be against the second Commandment because the Commandment does not forbid any worship that is transitive reduct accidental consequential analogical and hyperdulical and this is all that the Church of Rome does by her wisest doctors teach now a days But now after all this the easiest way of all certainly is to worship no images and no manner of way and trouble the peoples heads with no distinction for by these no man can ever be at peace or Understand the Commandment which without these laborious devices by which they confess the guilt of the Commandment does lie a little too heavy upon them would most easily by every man and every woman be plainly and properly understood And therefore I know not whether there be more impiety or more fearful caution in the Church of Rome in being so curious that the second Commandment be not expos'd to the eyes and ears of the people leaving it out of their manuals breviaries and Catechisms as if when they teach the people to serve God they had a mind they should not be tempted to keep all the Commandments And when at any time they do set it down they only say thus Non facies tibi Idolum which is a word not us'd in the second Commandment at all and if the word which is there us'd be sometimes translated Idolum yet it means no more than similitude or if the words be of distinct signification yet because both are expresly forbidden in that Commandment it is very ill to represent the Commandment so as if it were observ'd according to the intention of that word yet the Commandment might be broken by the not observing it according to the intention of the other word which they conceal But of this more by and by 7. I consider that there is very great scandal and offence given to Enemies and strangers to Christianity the very Turks and Jews with whom the worship of Images is of very ill report and that upon at least the most probable grounds in the world Now the Apostle having commanded all Christians to pursue those things which are of good report and to walk circumspectly and charitably towards them that are without and that we give no offence neither to the Jew nor to the Gentile Now if we consider that if the Christian Church were wholly without Images there would nothing perish to the faith or to the charity of the Church or to any grace which is in order to Heaven and that the spiritual state of the Christian Church may as well want such Baby-ceremonies as the Synagogue did and yet on the other side that the Jews and Turks are the more much more estranged from the religion of Christ Jesus by the Image-worship done by his pretended servants the consequent will be that to retain the worship of Images is both against the faith and the charity of Christians and puts limits and retrenches the borders of the Christian pale 8. It is also very scandalous to Christians that is it makes many and endangers more to fall into the direct sin of idolatry Polydore Virgil observes out of S. Jerome that almost all the holy Fathers damned the worship of Images for this very reason for fear of idolatry and Cassander says that all the ancients did abhor all adoration of Images and he cites Origen as an instance great enough to verifie the whole affirmative Nos vero ideo non honoramus simulachra quia quantum possumus cavemus ne quo modo incidamus in eam credulitatem ut his tribuamus divinitatis aliquid This authority E.W. pag. 55. is not ashamed to bring in behalf of himself in this question saying that Origen hath nothing against the use of Images and declares our Christian doctrine thus then he recites the words above quoted than which Origen could not speak plainer against the practice of the Roman Church and E. W. might as well have disputed for the Manichees with this argument The Scripture doth not say that God made the world it only declares the Christian doctrine thus In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth c. But this Gentleman thinks any thing will pass for argument amongst his own people And of this danger S. Austin gives a rational account No man doubts but idols want all sense But when they are plac'd in their seats in an honourable sublimity that they may be attended by them that pray and offer sacrifice by the very likeness of living members and senses although they be senseless and without life
praesunt tempora poenitentiae ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in quâ remittuntur ipsa peccata Extra eam quippe non remittuntur The times of penance are with great reason appointed by Ecclesiastical Governours that the Church in whose communion sins are forgiven may be satisfied For out of her there is no forgiveness 45. For in this case the Church hath a power of binding and retaining sins and sinners that is a denying to them the priviledges of the faithful till they by publick repentance and satisfaction have given testimony of their return to Gods favour and service The Church may deny to pray publickly for some persons and refuse to admit them into the society of those that do pray and refuse till she is satisfied concerning them by such signs and indications as she will appoint and chuse For it appears in both Testaments that those who are appointed to pray for others to stand between God and the people had it left in their choice sometimes and sometimes were forbidden to pray for certain criminals Thus God gave to the Prophet charge concerning Ephraim Pray not thou for this people neither lift up cry nor prayer for them neither make intercession for them for I will not hear thee Like to this was that of S. John There is a sin unto death I say not that ye pray for him that sins unto death that is do not admit such persons to the communion of prayers and holy offices at least the Church may chuse whether she will or no. 46. The Church in her Government and Discipline had two ends and her power was accordingly apt to minister to these ends 1. By condemning and punishing the sin she was to do what she could to save the criminal that is by bringing him to repentance and a holy life to bring him to pardon 2. And if she could or if she could not effect this yet she was to remove the scandal and secure the flock from infection This was all that was needful this was all that was possible to be done In order to the first the Apostles had some powers extraordinary which were indeed necessary at the beginning of the Religion not only for this but for other ministrations The Apostles had power to bind sinners that is to deliver them over to Satan and to sad diseases or death it self and they had power to loose sinners that is to cure their diseases to unloose Satans bands to restore them to Gods favour and pardon 47. This manner of speaking was used by our blessed Saviour in this very case of sickness and infirmity Ought not this woman a daughter of Abraham whom Satan hath bound loe these eighteen years be loosed from this band on the Sabbath day The Apostles had this power of binding and loosing and that this is the power of remitting and retaining sins appears without exception in the words of our blessed Saviour to the Jews who best understood the power of forgiving sins by seeing the evil which sin brought on the guilty person taken away That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins He saith to the man sick of the Palsie Arise take up thy bed and walk For there is a power in Heaven and a power on Earth to forgive sins The power that is in Heaven is the publick absolution of a sinner at the day of Judgment The power on Earth to forgive sins is a taking off those intermedial evils which are inflicted in the way sicknesses temporal death loss of the Divine grace and of the priviledges of the faithful These Christ could take off when he was upon Earth and his Heavenly Father sent him to do all this to heal all sicknesses and to cure all infirmities and to take away our sins and to preach glad tidings to the poor and comfort to the afflicted and rest to the weary and heavy laden The other judgment is to be perform'd by Christ at his second coming 48. Now as God the Father sent his Son so his holy Son sent his Apostles with the same power on Earth to bind and loose sinners to pardon sins by taking away the material evil effects which sin should superinduce or to retain sinners by binding them in sad and hard bands to bring them to reason or to make others afraid Thus S. Peter sentenc'd Ananias and Saphira to a temporal death and S. Paul stroke Elymas with blindness and deliver'd over the incestuous Corinthian to be beaten by an evil spirit and so also he did to Hymenaeus and Alexander 49. But this was an extraordinary power and not to descend upon the succeeding ages of the Church but it was in this as in all other ministeries something miraculous and extraordinary was for ever to consign a lasting truth and ministery in ordinary The preaching of the Gospel that is faith it self at first was prov'd by miracles and the Holy Ghost was given by signs and wonders and sins were pardon'd by the gifts of healing and sins were retained by the hands of an Angel and the very visitation of the sick was blessed with sensible and strange recoveries and every thing was accompanied with a miracle excepting the two Sacraments in the administration of which we do not find any mention of any thing visibly miraculous in the records of holy Scripture and the reason is plain because these two Sacraments were to be for ever the ordinary ministeries of those graces which at first were consign'd by signs and wonders extraordinary For in all ages of the Church reckoning exclusively from the days of the Apostles all the graces of the Gospel all the promises of God were conveyed or consign'd or fully ministred by these Sacraments and by nothing else but what was in order to them These were the inlets and doors by which all the faithful were admitted into the outer Courts of the Lords Temple or into the secrets of the Kingdom and the solemnities themselves were the Keys of these doors and they that had the power of ministration of them they had the power of the Keys 50. These then being the whole Ecclesiastical power and the summ of their ministrations were to be dispensed according to the necessities and differing capacities of the sons and daughters of the Church The Thessalonians who were not furnished with a competent number of Ecclesiastical Governours were commanded to abstain from the company of the brethren that walk'd disorderly S. John wrote to the Elect Lady that she should not entertain in her house false Apostles and when the former way did expire of it self and by the change of things and the second advice was not practicable and prudent they were reduced to the only ordinary ministery of remitting and retaining sins by a direct admitting or refusing and deferring to admit criminals to their ministeries of pardon which were now only left in the Church as their ordinary power and ministration For since in this world all our
this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less than Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally Why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say That from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world than to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgment of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's sin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankind all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therefore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more than the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sence not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endeavours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more than grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ than of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sence is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In
Son of God and upon this confession saith the story they both went into the water and the Ethiop was washed and became as white as snow 4. In these particular instances there is no variety of Articles save only that in the annexes of the several expressions such things are expressed as besides that Christ is come they tell from whence and to what purpose And whatsoever is expressed or is to these purposes implyed is made articulate and explicate in the short and admirable mysterious Creed of St. Paul Rom. 10.1 This is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved This is the great and entire complexion of a Christian's faith and since salvation is promised to the belief of this Creed either a snare is laid for us with a purpose to deceive us or else nothing is of prime and original necessity to be believed but this Jesus Christ our Redeemer and all that which is the necessary parts means or main actions of working this redemption for us and the honour for him is in the bowels and fold of the great Article and claims an explicite belief by the same reason that binds us to the belief of its first complexion without which neither the thing could be acted nor the proposition understood 5. For the act of believing propositions is not for it self but in order to certain ends as Sermons are to good life and obedience for excepting that it acknowledges Gods veracity and so is a direct act of Religion believing a revealed proposition hath no excellency in its self but in order to that end for which we are instructed in such revelations Now Gods great purpose being to bring us to him by Jesus Christ Christ is our medium to God obedience is the medium to Christ and Faith the medium to obedience and therefore is to have its estimate in proportion to its proper end and those things are necessary which necessarily promote the end without which obedience cannot be encouraged or prudently enjoyned So that those articles are necessary that is those are fundamental points upon which we build our obedience and as the influence of the Article is to the perswasion or engagement of obedience so they have their degrees of necessity Now all that Christ when he preached taught us to believe and all that the Apostles in their Sermons propound all aim at this that we should acknowledge Christ for our Law-giver and our Saviour so that nothing can be necessary by a prime necessity to be believed explicitely but such things which are therefore parts of the great Article because they either encourage our services or oblige them such as declare Christs greatness in himself or his goodness to us So that although we must neither deny nor doubt of any thing which we know our great Master hath taught us yet salvation is in special and by name annexed to the belief of those Articles only which have in them the endearments of our services or the support of our confidence or the satisfaction of our hopes such as are Jesus Christ the Son of the living God the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus forgiveness of sins by his bloud Resurrection of the dead and life eternal because these propositions qualifie Christ for our Saviour and our Law-Giver the one to engage our services the other to endear them for so much is necessary as will make us to be his servants and his Disciples and what can be required more This only Salvation is promised to the explicite belief of those Articles and therefore those only are necessary and those are sufficient but thus to us in the formality of Christians which is a formality superadded to a former capacity we before we are Christians are reasonable creatures and capable of a blessed eternity and there is a Creed which is the Gentiles Creed which is so supposed in the Christians Creed as it is supposed in a Christian to be a man and that is oportet accedentem ad Deum credere Deum esse esse remuneratorem quaerentium eum If any man will urge farther that whatsoever is deducible from these Articles by necessary consequence is necessary to be believed explicitely I answer It is true if he sees the deduction and coherence of the parts but it is not certain that every man shall be able to deduce whatsoever is either immediately or certainly deducible from these premises and then since salvation is promised to the explicite belief of these I see not how any man can justifie the making the way to heaven narrower than Jesus Christ hath made it it being already so narrow that there are few that find it 7. In the pursuance of this great truth the Apostles or the holy men their Contemporaries and Disciples composed a Creed to be a Rule of Faith to all Christians as appears in Irenaeus Tertullian St. Cyprian St. Austin Ruffinus and divers others which Creed unless it had contained all the intire object of Faith and the foundation of Religion it cannot be imagined to what purpose it should serve and that it was so esteemed by the whole Church of God in all Ages appears in this that since Faith is a necessary pre-disposition to Baptism in all persons capable of the use of reason all Catechumens in the Latine Church coming to Baptism were interrogated concerning their faith and gave satisfaction in the recitation of this Creed And in the East they professed exactly the same faith something differing in words but of the same matter reason design and consequence and so they did at Hierusalem so at Aquileia This was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These articles were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 5. Cod. de S. Trinit ad fid Cath. Cùm recta Now since the Apostles and Apostolical men and Churches in these their Symbols did recite particular Articles to a considerable number and were so minute in their recitation as to descend to circumstances it is more than probable that they omitted nothing of necessity and that these Articles are not general principles in the bosom of which many more Articles equally necessary to be believed explicitely and more particular are infolded but that it is as minute an explication of those prima credibilia I before reckoned as is necessary to salvation And therefore Tertullian calls the Creed Regulam fidei quâ salvâ formâ ejus manente in suo ordine possit in Scriptura tractari inquiri si quid videtur vel ambiguitate pendere vel obscuritate obumbrari Cordis signaculum nostrae militiae Sacramentum S. Ambrose calls it lib. 3. de velandis virgin Comprehensio fidei nostrae atque perfectio by S. Austin Serm. 115. Confessio expositio regula fidei generally by the Ancients The profession of this Creed was the exposition of that
saying of Saint Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The answer of a good conscience towards God For of the recitation and profession of this Creed in Baptism it is that Tertullian de resur carnis says Anima non lotione sed responsione sancitur And of this was the prayer of Hilary lib. 12. de Trinit Conserva hanc conscientiae meae vocem ut quod in regenerationis meae Symbolo baptizatus in Patre Filio Spir. S. professus sum semper obtineam And according to the rule and reason of this Discourse that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primò per se primely and universally necessary the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached viz. the Creed which St. Paul recites as contains in it all those things which entitle Christ to us in the capacities of our Law-giver and our Saviour such as enable him to the great work of redemption according to the predictions concerning him and such as engage and encourage our services For taking out the Article of Christs descent into Hell which was not in the old Creed as appears in some of the Copies I before referred to in Tertullian Ruffinus and Irenaeus and indeed was omitted in all the Confessions of the Eastern Churches in the Church of Rome and in the Nicene Creed which by adoption came to be the Creed of the Catholick Church all other Articles are such as directly constitute the parts and work of our redemption such as clearly derive the honour to Christ and enable him with the capacities of our Saviour and Lord. The rest engage our services by proposition of such Articles which are rather promises than propositions and the whole Creed take it in any of the old Forms is but an Analysis of that which St. Paul calls the word of salvation whereby we shall be saved viz. that we confess Jesus to be Lord and that God raised him from the dead by the first whereof he became our Law-giver and our Guardian by the second he was our Saviour the other things are but parts and main actions of those two Now what reason there is in the world that can inwrap any thing else within the foundation that is in the whole body of Articles simply and inseparably necessary or in the prime original necessity of Faith I cannot possibly imagine These do the work and therefore nothing can upon the true grounds of reason enlarge the necessity to the inclosure of other Articles 9. Now if more were necessary than the Articles of the Creed I demand why was it made the Characteristick note of a Christian from a Heretick or a Jew or an Infidel or to what purpose was it composed Or if this was intended as sufficient did the Apostles or those Churches which they founded know any thing else to be necessary If they did not then either nothing more is necessary I speak of matters of meer belief or they did not know all the will of the Lord and so were unfit Dispensers of the mysteries of the Kingdom or if they did know more was necessary and yet would not insert it they did an act of publick notice and consign'd it to all Ages of the Church to no purpose unless to beguile credulous people by making them believe their faith was sufficient having tried it by that touch-stone Apostolical when there was no such matter 10. But if this was sufficient to bring men to heaven then why not now If the Apostles admitted all to their Communion that believed this Creed why shall we exclude any that preserve the same intire Why is not our faith of these Articles of as much efficacy for bringing us to heaven as it was in the Churches Apostolical Who had guides more infallible that might without errour have taught them superstructures enough if they had been necessary and so they did But that they did not insert them into the Creed when they might have done it with as much certainty as these Articles makes it clear to my understanding that other things were not necessary but these were that whatever profit and advantages might come from other Articles yet these were sufficient and however certain persons might accidentally be obliged to believe much more yet this was the one and only foundation of Faith upon which all persons were to build their hopes of Heaven this was therefore necessary to be taught to all because of necessity to be believed by all So that although other persons might commit a delinquency in genere morum if they did not know or did not believe much more because they were obliged to further disquisitions in order to other ends yet none of these who held the Creed intire could perish for want of necessary faith though possibly he might for supine negligence or affected ignorance or some other fault which had influence upon his opinions and his understanding he having a new supervening obligation ex accidente to know and believe more 11. Neither are we oblig'd to make these Articles more particular and minute than the Creed For since the Apostles and indeed our blessed Lord himself promised heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the World and that he who believes in him should be partaker of the resurrection and life eternal he will be as good as his word yet because this Article was very general and a complexion rather than a single proposition the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicite though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready form'd in the bosom of the great Article yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the first great Article than the Creed of the Apostles For although whatsoever is certainly deduced from any of these Articles made already so explicite is as certainly true and as much to be believed as the Article it self because ex veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi yet because it is not certain that our deductions from them are certain and what one calls evident is so obscure to another that he believes it is false it is the best and only safe course to rest in that explication the Apostles have made because if any of these Apostolical deductions were not demonstrable evidently to follow from that great Article to which salvation is promised yet the authority of them who compil'd the Symbol the plain description of the Articles from the words of Scriptures the evidence of reason demonstrating these to be the whole foundation are sufficient upon great grounds of reason to ascertain us but if we go farther besides the easiness of being deceived we relying upon our own discourses which though they may be true and then bind us to follow them but yet no more than when they only seem truest yet they cannot make
the thing certain to another much less necessary in it self And since God would not bind us upon pain of sin and punishment to make deductions our selves much less would he bind us to follow another mans Logick as an Article of our Faith I say much less another mans for our own integrity for we will certainly be true to our selves and do our own business heartily is as fit and proper to be imployed as another mans ability He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest but I can be more certain that my own purposes and fidelity to my self is such And since it is necessary to rest somewhere lest we should run to an infinity it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolical rested when not only they who are able to judge but others who are not are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication 12. This I say not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for the Church or any of the Antistites religionis or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainly follow from any one of the Articles but I say that no such deduction is fit to be prest on others as an Article of Faith and that every deduction which is so made unless it be such a thing as is at first evident to all is but sufficient to make a humane Faith nor can it amount to a divine much less can be obligatory to bind a person of a differing perswasion to subscribe under pain of losing his Faith or being a Heretick For it is a demonstration that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of damnation but such propositions of which it is certain that God hath spoken and taught them to us and of which it is certain that this is their sence and purpose For if the sence be uncertain we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sence than we are to believe it at all if it were not certain that God delivered it But if it be only certain that God spake it and not certain to what sence our faith of it is to be as indeterminate as its sence and it can be no other in the nature of the thing nor is it consonant to Gods justice to believe of him that he can or will require more And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which without any further probation all wise men will give assent at its first publication And therefore deductions inevident from the evident and plain letter of Faith are as great recessions from the obligation as they are from the simplicity and certainty of the Article And this I also affirm although the Church of any one denomination or represented in a Council shall make the deduction or declaration For unless Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errours less material unless he had promised an absolute universal infallibility etiam in minutioribus unless super-structures be of the same necessity with the foundation and that Gods Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is less certain and that whether they will or no too we may be bound to peace and obedience to silence and to charity but have not a new Article of Faith made and a new proposition though consequent as 't is said from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith nor of absolute necessity Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur said Vincentius Lirinensis whatsoever was of necessary belief is so still and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication but no propositions can be adopted into the foundation The Church hath power to intend our Faith but not to extend it to make our belief more evident but not more large and comprehensive For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the integrity of Christian Faith or salvation of our souls Christ declared all the will of his Father and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries and were faithful in all the house and therefore concealed nothing but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ so they said themselves And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith an Angel or a man might have taught us other things than what they taught without deserving an Anathema but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith and then was their infallibility and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title for she may as well introduce a falshood as lose a truth it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth as that she shall be preserved from all errours as appears John 16.13 Or if she retained all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught then no Age can by declaring any point make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration And indeed if the Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary which before was not necessary I do not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to do especially after so long experience she hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication for by so doing she makes the narrow way to Heaven narrower and chalks out one path more to the Devil than he had before and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest For before differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions and now after this declaration if they cannot there is no other alteration made but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and belief should have been beatified persons For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errours were not discovered for if they had been contested for that would have been called discovery enough vel errores emendassent vel ab Ecclesiâ ejecti fuissent But it is better as it was they went to heaven by that good-fortune whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devil And yet there were some errours particularly that of Saint Cyprian that was discovered and he went to heaven 't is thought possibly they might so too for all this pretence But suppose it true yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or been ignorant does more good
than the damning of those many souls occasionally but yet certainly and fore-knowingly does hurt I leave it to all wise and good men to determine And yet besides this it cannot enter into my thoughts that it can possibly consist with Gods goodness to put it into the power of man so palpably and openly to alter the paths and in-lets to heaven and to streighten his mercies unless he had furnished these men with an infallible judgment and an infallible prudence and a never failing charity that they should never do it but with great necessity and with great truth and without ends and humane designs of which I think no Arguments can make us certain what the Primitive Church hath done in this case I shall afterwards consider and give an account of it but for the present there is no insecurity in ending there where the Apostles ended in building where they built in resting where they left us unless the same infallibility which they had had still continued which I think I shall hereafter make evident it did not And therefore those extensions of Creed which were made in the first Ages of the Church although for the matter they were most true yet because it was not certain that they should be so and they might have been otherwise therefore they could not be in the same order of Faith nor in the same degrees of necessity to be believed with the Articles Apostolical and therefore whether they did well or no in laying the same weight upon them or whether they did lay the same weight or no we will afterwards consider 13. But to return I consider that a foundation of Faith cannot alter unless a new building be to be made the foundation is the same still and this foundation is no other but that which Christ and his Apostles laid which Doctrine is like himself yesterday and to day and the same for ever So that the Articles of necessary belief to all which are the only foundation they cannot be several in several Ages and to several persons Nay the sentence and declaration of the Church cannot lay this foundation or make any thing of the foundation because the Church cannot lay her own foundation we must suppose her to be a building and that she relies upon the foundation which is therefore supposed to be laid before because she is built upon it or to make it more explicate because a cloud may arise from the Allegory of building and foundation it is plainly thus The Church being a company of men obliged to the duties of Faith and obedience the duty and obligation being of the faculties of will and understanding to adhere to such an object must pre-suppose the object made ready for them for as the object is before the act in order of nature and therefore not to be produced or encreased by the faculty which is receptive cannot be active upon its proper object So the object of the Churches Faith is in order of nature before the Church or before the act and habit of Faith and therefore cannot be enlarged by the Church any more than the act of the visive faculty can add visibility to the object So that if we have found out what foundation Christ and his Apostles did lay that is what body and systeme of Articles simply necessary they taught and required of us to believe we need not we cannot go any farther for foundation we cannot enlarge that systeme or collection Now then although all that they said is true and nothing of it to be doubted or dis-believed yet as all that they said is neither written nor delivered because all was not necessary so we know that of those things which are written some things are as far off from the foundation as those things which were omitted and therefore although now accidentally they must be believed by all that know them yet it is not necessary all should know them and that all should know them in the same sence and interpretation is neither probable nor obligatory but therefore since these things are to be distinguished by some differences of necessary and not necessary whether or no is not the declaration of Christ and his Apostles affixing salvation to the belief of some great comprehensive Articles and the act of the Apostles rendring them as explicite as they thought convenient and consigning that Creed made so explicite as a tessera of a Christian as a comprehension of the Articles of his belief as a sufficient disposition and an express of the Faith of a Catechumen in order to Baptism whether or no I say all this be not sufficient probation that these only are of absolute necessity that this is sufficient for meer belief in order to Heaven and that therefore whosoever believes these Articles heartily and explicitely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint John's expression is God dwelleth in him I leave it to be considered and judged of from the premises Only this if the old Doctors had been made Judges in these Questions they would have passed their affirmative for to instance in one for all of this it was said by Tertullian Regula quidem fidei una omnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis c. Hâc lege fidei manente caetera jam disciplinae conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis operante scil proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei This Symbol is the one sufficient immoveable unalterable and unchangeable rule of Faith that admits no increment or decrement but if the integrity and unity of this be preserved in all other things men may take a liberty of enlarging their knowledges and prophecyings according as they are assisted by the grace of God SECT II. Of Heresy and the nature of it and that it is to be accounted according to the strict capacity of Christian Faith and not in Opinions speculative nor ever to pious persons 1. AND thus I have represented a short draught of the Object of Faith and its foundation the next consideration in order to our main design is to consider what was and what ought to be the judgment of the Apostles concerning Heresy For although there are more kinds of vices than there are of vertues yet the number of them is to be taken by accounting the transgressions of their vertues and by the limits of Faith we may also reckon the Analogy and proportions of Heresy that as we have seen who was called faithful by the Apostolical men we may also perceive who were listed by them in the Catalogue of Hereticks that we in our judgmenâ—s may proceed accordingly 2. And first the word Heresy is used in Scripture indifferently in a good sence for a Sect or Division of Opinion and men following it or sometimes in a bad sence for a false Opinion signally condemned but these kind of people were then call'd Antichrists and false Prophets more frequently than Hereticks and then there were many of them in the World But it is
of men with such a power In the mean time he that submits his understanding to all that he knows God hath said and is ready to submit to all that he hath said if he but know it denying his own affections and ends and interests and humane perswasions laying them all down at the foot of his great Master Jesus Christ that man hath brought his understanding into subjection and every proud thought unto the obedience of Christ and this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the obedience of Faith which is the duty of a Christian. 14. But to proceed Besides these heresies noted in Scripture the age of the Apostles and that which followed was infested with other heresies but such as had the same formality and malignity with the precedent all of them either such as taught practical impieties or denied an Article of the Creed Egesippus in Eusebius reckons seven only prime heresies that sought to deflour the purity of the Church That of Simon that of Thebutes of Cleobius of Dositheus of Gortheus of Masbotheus I suppose Cerinthus to have been the seventh man though he express him not But of these except the last we know no particulars but that Egesippus says they were false Christs and that their doctrine was directly against God and his blessed Son Menander also was the first of a Sect but he bewitched the people with his Sorceries Cerinthus his doctrine pretended Enthusiasm or a new Revelation and ended in lust and impious theorems in matter of uncleanness The Ebionites denied Christ to be the Son of God and affirmed him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begot by natural generation by occasion of which and the importunity of the Asian Bishops St. John writ his Gospel and taught the observation of Moses Law Basilides taught it lawful to renounce the faith and take false oaths in time of Persecution Carpocrates was a very bedlam half-witch and quite mad-man and practised lust which he called the secret operations to overcome the Potentates of the World Some more there were but of the same nature and pest not of a nicety in dispute not a question of secret Philosophy not of atomes and undiscernable propositions but open defiances of all Faith of all sobriety and of all sanctity excepting only the doctrine of the Millenaries which in the best Ages was esteemed no heresy but true Catholick Doctrine though since it hath justice done to it and hath suffered a just condemnation 15. Hitherto and in these instances the Church did esteem and judge of heresies in proportion to the rules and characters of Faith For Faith being a Doctrine of piety as well as truth that which was either destructive of fundamental verity or of Christian sanctity was against Faith and if it made a Sect was heresy if not it ended in personall impiety and went no farther But those who as S. Paul says not onely did such things but had pleasure in them that doe them and therefore taught others to doe what they impiously did dogmatize they were Hereticks both in matter and form in doctrine and deportment towards God and towards man and judicable in both tribunals 16. But the Scripture and Apostolical Sermons having expressed most high indignation against these masters of impious Sects leaving them under prodigious characters and horrid representments as calling them men of corrupt minds reprobates concerning the faith given over to strong delusions to the belief of a lie false Apostles false Prophets men already condemned and that by themselves Anti-Christs enemies to God and heresy it self a work of the flesh excluding from the kingdom of heaven left such impressions in the minds of all their successors and so much zeal against such Sects that if any opinion commenced in the Church not heard of before it oftentimes had this ill luck to run the same fortune with an old heresy For because the Hereticks did bring in new opinions in matters of great concernment every opinion de novo brought in was liable to the same exception and because the degree of malignity in every errour was oftentimes undiscernable and most commonly indemonstrable their zeal was alike against all and those Ages being full of piety were sitted to be abused with an over-active zeal as wise persons and learned are with a too much indifferency 17. But it came to pass that the further the succession went from the Apostles the more forward men were in numbring heresies and that upon slighter and more uncertain grounds Some footsteps of this we shall find if we consider the Sects that are said to have sprung in the first three hundred years and they were pretty and quick in their springs and falls fourscore and seven of them are reckoned They were indeed reckoned afterward and though when they were alive they were not condemn'd with as much forwardness as after they were dead yet even then confidence began to mingle with opinions less necessary and mistakes in judgment were oftner and more publick than they should have been But if they were forward in their censures as sometimes some of them were it is no great wonder they were deceived For what principle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had they then to judge of heresies or condemn them besides the single dictates or decretals of private Bishops for Scripture was indifferently pretended by all and concerning the meaning of it was the Question now there was no general Council all that while no opportunity for the Church to convene and if we search the communicatory letters of the Bishops and Martyrs in those days we shall find but few sentences decretory concerning any Question of Faith or new sprung opinion And in those that did for ought appears the persons were mis-reported or their opinions mistaken or at most the sentence of condemnation was no more but this Such a Bishop who hath had the good fortune by posterity to be reputed a Catholick did condemn such a man or such an opinion and yet himself erred in as considerable matters but meeting with better neighbours in his life-time and a more charitable posterity hath his memory preserved in honour It appears plain enough in the case of Nicholas the Deacon of Antioch upon a mistake of his words whereby he taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to abuse the flesh viz. by acts of austerity and self-denial and mortification some wicked people that were glad to be mistaken and abused into a pleasing crime pretended that he taught them to abuse the flesh by filthy commixtures and pollutions This mistake was transmitted to posterity with a full cry and acts afterwards found out to justifie an ill opinion of him For by S. Hierom's time it grew out of Question but that he was the vilest of men and the worst of Hereticks Nicolaus Antiochenus omnium immunditiarum conditor choros duxit foemineos And again Iste Nicolaus Diaconus ita immundus extitit ut etiam in praesepi Domini nefas perpetrârit Accusations
a lie But a good man that believes what according to his light and upon the use of his moral industry he thinks true whether he hits upon the right or no because he hath a mind desirous of truth and prepared to believe every truth is therefore acceptable to God because nothing hindred him from it but what he could not help his misery and his weakness which being imperfections meerly natural which God never punishes he stands fair for a blessing of his morality which God always accepts So that now if Stephen had followed the example of God Almighty or retained but the same peaceable spirit which his Brother of Carthage did he might with more advantage to truth and reputation both of wisdom and piety have done his duty in attesting what he believed to be true for we are as much bound to be zealous pursuers of peace as earnest contenders for the Faith I am sure more earnest we ought to be for the peace of the Church than for an Article which is not of the Faith as this Question of rebaptization was not for S. Cyprian died in belief against it and yet was a Catholick and a Martyr for the Christian Faith 23. The summe is this S. Cyprian did right in a wrong cause as it hath been since judged and Stephen did ill in a good cause as far then as piety and charity is to be perferred before a true opinion so far is S. Cyprian's practice a better precedent for us and an example of primitive sanctity than the zeal and indiscretion of Stephen S. Cyprian had not learned to forbid to any one a liberty of prophesying or interpretation if he transgressed not the foundation of Faith and the Creed of the Apostles 24. Well thus it was and thus it ought to be in the first Ages the Faith of Christendom rested still upon the same foundation and the judgements of heresies were accordingly or were amiss but the first great violation of this truth was when General Councils came in and the Symbols were enlarged and new Articles were made as much of necessity to be believed as the Creed of the Apostles and damnation threatned to them that did dissent and at last the Creeds multiplied in number and in Articles and the liberty of prophesying began to be something restrained 25. And this was of so much the more force and efficacy because it began upon great reason and in the first instance with success good enough For I am much pleased with the enlarging of the Creed which the Council of Nice made because they enlarged it to my sence but I am non sure that others are satisfied with it While we look upon the Articles they did determine we see all things well enough but there are some wise personages consider it in all circumstances and think the Church had been more happy if she had not been in some sence constrained to alter the simplicity of her faith and make it more curious and articulate so much that he had need be a subtle man to understand the very words of the new determinations 26. For the first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in the presence of his Clergy entreats somewhat more curiously of the secret of the mysterious Trinity and Unity so curiously that Arius who was a Sophister too subtle as it afterward appeared misunderstood him and thought he intended to bring in the heresy of Sabellius For while he taught the Unity of the Tritity either he did it so inartificially or so intricately that Arius thought he did not distinguish the persons when the Bishop intended only the unity of nature Against this Arius furiously drives and to confute Sabellius and in him as he thought the Bishop distinguishes the natures too and so to secure the Article of the Trinity destroyes the Unity It was the first time the Question was disputed in the world and in such mysterious niceties possibly every wise man may understand something but few can understand all and therefore suspect what they understand not and are furiously zealous for that part of it which they do perceive Well it happened in these as always in such cases in things men understand not they are most impetuous and because suspicion is a thing infinite in degrees for it hath nothing to determine it a suspicious person is ever most violent for his fears are worse than the thing feared because the thing is limited but his fears are not so that upon this grew contentious on both sides and tumultuous rayling and reviling each other and then the Laity were drawn into parts and the Meletians abetted the wrong part and the right part fearing to be overborn did any thing that was next at hand to secure it self Now then they that lived in that Age that understood the men that saw how quiet the Church was before this stirre how miserably rent now what little benefit from the Question what schism about it gave other censures of the business than we since have done who only look upon the Article determined with truth and approbation of the Church generally since that time But the Epistle of Constantine to Alexander and Arius tells the truth and chides them both for commencing the Question Alexander for broaching it Arius for taking it up and although this be true that it had been better for the Church it never had begun yet being begun what is to be done in it of this also in that admirable Epistle we have the Emperours judgment I suppose not without the advice and privity of Hosius Bishop of Corduba whom the Emperour loved and trusted much and imployed in the delivery of the Letters For first he calls it a certain vain piece of a Question ill begun and more unadvisedly published a Question which no Law or Ecclesiastical Canon defineth a fruitless contention the product of idle brains a matter so nice so obscure so intricate that it was neither to be explicated by the Clergy nor understood by the people a dispute of words a doctrine inexplicable but most dangerous when taught lest it introduce discord or blasphemy and therefore the Objector was rash and the Answerer unadvised for it concerned not the substance of Faith or the worship of God nor any chief commandment of Scripture and therefore why should it be the matter of discord For though the matter be grave yet because neither necessary nor explicable the contention is trifling and toyish And therefore as the Philosophers of the same Sect though differing in explication of an opinion yet more love for the unity of their Profession than disagree for the difference of opinion So should Christians believing in the same God retaining the same Faith having the same hopes opposed by the same enemies not fall at variance upon such disputes considering our understandings are not all alike and therefore neither can our opinions in such mysterious Articles So that the matter being of no great importance but vain and a
tres hypostases dicere si jubetis and again Obtestor beatitudinem tuam per Crucifixum mundi salutem per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitatem ut mihi Epistolis tuis sive tacendarum sive dicendarum hypostaseôn detur authoritas 30. But without all Question the Fathers determined the Question with much truth though I cannot say the Arguments upon which they built their Decrees were so good as the conclusion it self was certain But that which in this case is considerable is whether or no they did well in putting a curse to the foot of their Decree and the Decree it self into the Symbol as if it had been of the same necessity For the curse Eusebius Pamphilus could hardly find in his heart to subscribe at last he did but with this clause that he subscribed it because the former curse did only forbid men to acquaint themselves with forraign speeches and unwritten languages whereby confusion and discord is brought into the Church So that it was not so much a magisterial high assertion of the Article as an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church And to the same purpose for ought I know the Fathers composed a form of Confession not as a prescript Rule of Faith to build the hopes of our salvation on but as a tessera of that Communion which by publick Authority was therefore established upon those Articles because the Articles were true though not of prime necessity and because that unity of confession was judged as things then stood the best preserver of the unity of minds 31. But I shall observe this that although the Nicene Fathers in that case at that time and in that conjuncture of circumstances did well and yet their approbation is made by after Ages ex post facto yet if this precedent had been followed by all Councils and certainly they had equal power if they had thought it equally reasonable and that they had put all their Decrees into the Creed as some have done since to what a volume had the Creed by this time swelled and all the house had run into foundation nothing left for super-structures But that they did not it appears 1. That since they thought all their Decrees true yet they did not think them all necessary at least not in that degree and that they published such Decrees they did it Declarando not imperando as Doctors in their Chairs not masters of other mens faith and consciences 2. And yet there is some more modesty or wariness or necessity what shall I call it than this comes too for why are not all controversies determined but even when General assemblies of Prelates have been some controversies that have been very vexatious have been pretermitted and others of less consequence have been determined Why did never any General Council condemn in express sentence the Pelagian heresie that great pest that subtle infection of Christendome and yet divers General Councils did assemble while the heresie was in the World Both these cases in several degrees leave men in their liberty of believing and prophesying The latter proclaims that all controversies cannot de determined to sufficient purposes and the first declares that those that are are not all of them matters of Faith and themselves are not so secure but they may be deceived and therefore possibly it were better it were let alone for if the latter leaves them divided in their opinions yet their Communions and therefore probably their charities are not divided but the former divides their Communions and hinders their interest and yet for ought is certain the accused person is the better Catholick And yet after all this it is not safety enough to say let the Council or Prelates determine Articles warily seldom with great caution and with much sweetness and modesty For though this be better than to do it rashly frequently and furiously yet if we once transgress the bounds set us by the Apostles in their Creed and not only preach other truths but determine them pro tribunali as well as pro cathedra although there be no errour in the subject matter as in Nice there was none yet if the next Ages say they will determine another Article with as much care and caution and pretend as great a necessity there is no hindring them but by giving reasons against it and so like enough they might have done against the decreeing the Article at Nice yet that this is not sufficient for since the Authority of the Nicene Council hath grown to the height of a mountainous prejudice against him that should say it was ill done the same reason and the same necessity may be pretended by any Age and in any Council and they think themselves warranted by the great precedent at Nice to proceed as peremptorily as they did but then if any other Assembly of learned men may possibly be deceived were it not better they should spare the labour than that they should with so great pomp and solemnities engage mens perswasions and determine an Article which after Ages must rescind for therefore most certainly in their own Age the point with safety of faith and salvation might have been disputed and disbelieved And that many mens faiths have been tyed up by Acts and Decrees of Councils for those Articles in which the next age did see a liberty had better been preserved because an errour was determined we shall afterward receive a more certain account 32. And therefore the Council of Nice did well and Constantinople did well so did Ephesus and Chalcedon but it is because the Articles were truly determined for that is part of my belief but who is sure it should be so before-hand and whether the points there determined were necessary or no to be believed or to be determined if peace had been concerned in it through the faction and division of the parties I suppose the judgment of Constantine the Emperour and the famous Hosius of Corduba is sufficient to instruct us whose authority I rather urge than reasons because it is a prejudice and not a reason I am to contend against it 33. So that such determinations and publishing of Confessions with Authority of Prince and Bishop are sometimes of very good use for the peace of the Church and they are good also to determine the judgment of indifferent persons whose reasons of either side are not too great to weigh down the probability of that Authority But for persons of confident and imperious understandings they on whose side the determination is are armed with a prejudice against the other and with a weapon to affront them but with no more to convince them and they against whom the decision is do the more readily betake themselves to the defensive and are engaged upon contestation and publick enmities for such Articles which either might safely have been unknown or with much charity disputed Therefore the Nicene Council although it have the advantage of an acquired and prescribing Authority yet it must
not become a precedent to others lest the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon a great pretence of reason as then make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightning Prophesying and enlarging the Creed become accidentally an inconvenience The first restraint although if it had been complained of might possibly have been better considered of yet the inconvenience is not visible till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more It is like an arbitrary power which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject it may take a hundred pound and then a thousand and then all yet so long as it is within the first bounds the inconvenience is not so great but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more then the first may justly be complained of as having in it that reason in the principle which brought the inconvenience in the sequel and we have seen very ill consequences from innocent beginnings 34. And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from this precedent those wise Personages also did foresee and therefore although they took liberty in Nice to add some Articles or at least more explicitely to declare the first Creed yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and go no farther as believing that to be sufficient Saint Athanasius declares their opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Faith which the Fathers there confessed was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperour called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Epistle of reconciliation in which all disagreeing interests are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects adding withal that the Church should never receive any other Symbol than that which was composed by the Nicene Fathers And however Honorius was condemned for a Monothelite yet in one of the Epistles which the sixth Synod alledged against him viz. the second he gave them counsel that would have done the Church as much service as the determination of the Article did for he advised them not to be curious in their disputings nor dogmatical in their determinations about that Question and because the Church was not used to dispute in that Question it were better to preserve the simplicity of Faith than to ensnare mens consciences by a new Article And when the Emperour Constantius was by his Faction engaged in a contrary practice the inconvenience and unreasonableness was so great that a prudent Heathen observed and noted it in this character of Constantius Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem N. B. anili superstitione confudit In quâ scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ gratiùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium 35. And yet men are more led by Example than either by Reason or by Precept for in the Council of Constantinople one Article de novo integro was added viz. I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins and then again they were so confident that that Confession of Faith was so absolutely intire and that no man ever after should need to add any thing to the integrity of Faith that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus pronounced Anathema to all those that should add any thing to the Creed of Constantinople And yet for all this the Church of Rome in a Synod at Gentilly added the clause of Filioque to the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost and what they have done since all the World knows Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem All men were perswaded that it was most reasonable the limits of Faith should be no more enlarged but yet they enlarged it themselves and bound others from doing it like an intemperate Father who because he knows he does ill himself enjoyns temperance to his Son but continues to be intemperate himself 36. But now if I should be questioned concerning the Symbol of Athanasius for we see the Nicene Symbol was the Father of many more some twelve or thirteen Symbols in the space of an hundred years I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his Preface and Conclusion as there was in the Nicene Creed Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly unless the Article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained Indeed Athanasius had been soundly vexed on one side and much cryed up on the other and therefore it is not so much wonder for him to be so decretory and severe in his censure for nothing could more ascertain his friends to him and dis-repute his enemies than the belief of that damnatory Appendix but that does not justifie the thing For the Articles themselves I am most heartily perswaded of the truth of them and yet I dare not say all that are not so are irrevocably damn'd because citra hoc Symbolum the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is he that believeth such a belief as is sufficient disposition to be baptized that Faith with the Sacrament is sufficient for heaven Now the Apostles Creed does one why therefore do not both intitle us to the promise Besides if it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed how many people understand it not how contrary to natural reason it seems how little the Scripture says of those curiosities of Explication and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self much less for those forms and minutes how himself is put to make an answer and excuse for the Fathers speaking in excuse of the Arrians at least so seemingly that the Arrians appealed to them for trial and the offer was declin'd and after all this that the Nicene Creed it self went not so far neither in Article nor Anathema nor Explication it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ for he is appointed Judge of all the World and he shall judge the people righteously for he knows every truth the degree of every necessity and all excuses that do lessen or take away the nature or malice of a crime all which I think Athanasius though a very good man did not know so well as to warrant such a sentence And put case the heresie there condemned be damnable as it is damnable enough yet a man may maintain an opinion that is in it self damnable and yet he not knowing it so and being invincibly led into it may go to heaven his opinion shall burn and himself be saved But however I find no opinion in Scripture called damnable but what are impious in materiâ
practicâ or directly destructive of the Faith or the body of Christianity such of which Saint Peter speaks bringing in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make merchandise of you through cozening words Such as these are truly heresies and such as these are certainly damnable But because there are no degrees either of truth or falshood every true proposition being alike true that an errour is more or less damnable is not told us in Scripture but is determined by the man and his manners by circumstances and accidents and therefore the censure in the Preface and end are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his perswasion but they are extrinsecal and accidental to the Articles and might as well have been spared And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed and so to make it become as an Article of Faith though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius who if we may believe Aquinas made this manifestation of Faith non per modum Symboli sed per modum doctrinae that is if I understand him right not with a purpose to impose it upon others but with confidence to declare his own belief and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed was the act of the Bishops of Rome so he said nay possibly it was none of his So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since in his Epistle to John Douza Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum luce lucidiùs contestamur And it is more than probable that he said true because this Creed was written originally in Latine which in all reason Athanasius did not and it was translated into Greek it being apparent that the Latine Copy is but one but the Greek is various there being three Editions or Translations rather expressed by Genebrard lib. 3. de Trinit But in this particular who list may better satisfie himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Clencherus 37. And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius and that other of Nice offer not at any new Articles they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation If they intended these further Explanations to be as necessary as the dogmatical Articles of the Apostles Creed I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius saying of this Creed This is the Catholick Faith and if his authority be good or his saying true or he the Author then no man can say of any other Article that it is a part of the Catholick Faith or that the Catholick Faith can be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome first to add twelve new Articles and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them This is the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved 38. But so great an Example of so excellent a man hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness all the World in factions all damning one another each party damn'd by all the rest and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion but damnation presently to all that disagree A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other as in the matter of the Saturday Fast and keeping Easter But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion as they call it though the thing it self may be most inconsiderable is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third desiring of the Greeks but reasonably a man would think that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread as to wash and scrape and pare the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion commonly they are so busie in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies that they neglect the greater things of the Law charity and compliances and the gentleness of Christian Communion for this is the great principle of mischief and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable 39. For I demand Can any man say and justifie that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles Creed and lived a good life And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness and indifferency in Religion And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith so expounded and made explicite by the Apostles and lives accordingly And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate St. Hilary Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat c. In absoluio nobis facili est aeternitas Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum credere ipsum esse Dominum confiteri c. These are the Articles which we must believe which are the sufficient and adequate object of the Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation And therefore it was that when the Bishops of Istria deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius in causâ trium Capitulorum He gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed and by attesting the four General Councils and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari let the Apostles Creed especially so explicated be but secured and all Faith is secured and yet that explication too was less necessary than the Articles themselves for the Explication was but accidental but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdome of Heaven 40. And that there was security enough in the simple believing the first Articles is very certain amongst them and by their Principles who allow of an implicite faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith and that other Articles were in it implicitely for such is the doctrine of the School and particularly of Aquinas then he that explicitely believes all the Creed
Ecclesiae magisterio abrogatis Now it were good that they which take a liberty to themselves should also allow the same to others So that for one thing or other all Traditions excepting those very few that are absolutely universal will lose all their obligation and become no competent medium to confine mens practices or limit their faiths or determine their perswasions Either for the difficulty of their being proved the incompetency of the testimony that transmits them or the indifferency of the thing transmitted all Traditions both ritual and doctrinal are disabled from determining our consciences either to a necessary believing or obeying 9. Sixthly To which I adde by way of confirmation that there are some things called Traditions and are offered to be proved to us by a Testimony which is either false or not extant Clemens of Alexandria pretended it a Tradition that the Apostles preached to them that died in infidelity even after their death and then raised them to life but he proved it only by the Testimony of the Book of Hermes he affirmed it to be a Tradition Apostolical that the Greeks were saved by their Philosophie but he had no other Authority for it but the Apocryphal Books of Peter and Paul Tertullian and S. Basil pretended it an Apostolical Tradition to sign in the aire with the sign of the Cross but this was only consigned to them in the Gospel of Nicodemus But to instance once for all in the Epistle of Marcellus to the Bishop of Antioch where he affirmes that it is the Canon of the Apostles praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis non posse Concilia celebrari And yet there is no such Canon extant nor ever was for ought appears in any Record we have and yet the Collection of the Canons is so intire that though it hath something more than what was Apostolical yet it hath nothing less And now that I am casually fallen upon an instance from the Canons of the Apostles I consider that there cannot in the world a greater instance be given how easie it is to be abused in the believing of Traditions For 1. to the first 50 which many did admit for Apostolical 35 more were added which most men now count spurious all men call dubious and some of them univerally condemned by peremptory sentence even by them who are greatest admirers of that Collection as 65.67 and 8â…˜ Canons For the first 50 it is evident that there are some things so mixt with them and no mark of difference left that the credit of all is much impaired insomuch that Isidor of Sevil says they were Apocryphal made by Hereticks and published under the title Apostolical but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them And yet they have prevailed so far amongst some that Damascen is of opinion they should be received equally with the Canonical writings of the Apostles One thing only I observe and we shall find it true in most writings whose Authority is urged in Questions of Theologie that the Authority of the Tradition is not it which moves the assent but the nature of the thing and because such a Canon is delivered they do not therefore believe the sanction or proposition so delivered but disbelieve the Tradition if they do not like the matter and so do not judge of the matter by the Tradition but of the Tradition by the matter And thus the Church of Rome rejects the 84. or 85. Canon of the Apostles not because it is delivered with less Authority than the last 35 are but because it reckons the Canon of Scripture otherwise than it is at Rome Thus also the fifth Canon amongst the first 50 because it approves the marriage of Priests and Deacons does not perswade them to approve of it too but it self becomes suspected for approving it So that either they accuse themselves of palpable contempt of the Apostolical Authority or else that the reputation of such Traditions is kept up to serve their own ends and therefore when they encounter them they are no more to be upheld which what else is it but to teach all the world to contemn such pretences and undervalue Traditions and to supply to others a reason why they should doe that which to them that give the occasion is most unreasonable 10. Seventhly The Testimony of the Ancient Church being the only means of proving Tradition and sometimes their dictates and doctrine being the Tradition pretended of necessity to be imitated it is considerable that men in their estimate of it take their rise from several Ages and differing Testimonies and are not agreed about the competency of their Testimony and the reasons that on each side make them differ are such as make the authority it self the less authentick and more repudiable Some will allow only of the three first Ages as being most pure most persecuted and therefore most holy least interested serving fewer designes having fewest factions and therefore more likely to speak the truth for Gods sake and its own as best complying with their great end of acquiring Heaven in recompence of losing their lives Others say that those Ages being persecuted minded the present Doctrines proportionable to their purposes and constitution of the Ages and make little or nothing of those Questions which at this day vex Christendome And both speak true The first Ages speak greatest truth but least pertinently The next Ages the Ages of the four general Councils spake something not much more pertinently to the present Questions but were not so likely to speak true by reason of their dispositions contrary to the capacity and circumstance of the first Ages and if they speak wisely as Doctors yet not certainly as witnesses of such propositions which the first Ages noted not and yet unless they had noted could not possibly be Traditions And therefore either of them will be less useless as to our present affairs For indeed the Questions which now are the publick trouble were not considered or thought upon for many hundred years and therefore prime Tradition there is none as to our purpose and it will be an insufficient medium to be used or pretended in the determination and to dispute concerning the truth or necessity of Traditions in the Questions of our times is as if Historians disputing about a Question in the English Story should fall on wrangling whether Livie or Plutarch were the best Writers And the earnest disputes about Traditions are to no better purpose For no Church at this day admits the one half of those things which certainly by the Fathers were called Traditions Apostolical and no Testimony of ancient Writers does consign the one half of the present Questions to be or not to be traditions So that they who admit only the doctrine and testimony of the first Ages cannot be determined in most of their doubts which now trouble us because their writings are of matters wholly differing from the present disputes and they which
in France and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer and of the Roman Communion disputed against the reception And this is a known condition in the Canon Law but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councils have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council And there is great Reason it should for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented so it resolves into it and though it may have all the legal power yet it hath not all the natural for more able men may be unsent then sent and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church It is therefore most fit that since the legal power that is the externall was passed over to the body representative yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remain in the diffusive as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no and so to proceed accordingly For unless it be in matters of justice in which the interest of a third person is concern'd no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right in matters personall proper and of so high concernment It is most unnatural and unreasonable But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace the best humane Judicatories in the world rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversie and the greatest probability from humane Authority besides these advantages I say I know nothing greater that general Councils can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man And as there was never any Council so general but it might have been more general for in respect of the whole Church even Nice it self was but a small Assembly so there is no Decree so well constituted but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Council And therefore general Councils and National and Provinciall and Diocesan in their severall degrees are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the Fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 1. BUT since the Question between the Council and the Pope grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf as to believe General Councils to be nothing but Pomps and Solemnities of the Catholick Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresie yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II. and therefore it concerns us now to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II. while he was the wise and learned Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preeminence of a Council and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Council though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councils give none and yet as soon as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peter's Chair which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a General Council But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universal and the Infallible Doctor that he breaths Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresie the Rule of Faith being nothing else but conformity to the Chair of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complain that his choice is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himself And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to finde it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be couzened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider 2. And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plain then the Commission given to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keys And again For thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and enabled with an infallible power so to do And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's successors as to his Person that must by all means be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene In this Tradition Apostolical always was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholick To this Church errour or perfidiousness cannot have access Against this See the gates of Hell cannot prevail For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock And whoever
eats the Lamb not within this House is prophane he that is not in the Ark of Noah perishes in the inundation of waters He that gathers not with this Bishop he scatters and he that belongeth not to Christ must needs belong to Antichrist And that 's his final sentence But if you would have all this proved by an infallible Argument Optatus of Milevis in Africa supplies it to us from the very name of Peter For therefore Christ gave him the cognomination of Cephas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to shew that S. Peter was the visible Head of the Catholick Church Dignum patellâ operculum This long harangue must needs be full of tragedy to all them that take liberty to themselves to follow Scripture and their best Guides if it happens in that liberty that they depart from the perswasions of the Communion of Rome But indeed if with the peace of the Bishops of Rome I may say it this Scene is the most unhandsomly laid and the worst carried of any of those pretences that have lately abused Christendome 3. First Against the Allegations of Scripture I shall lay no greater prejudice then this that if a person dis-interested should see them and consider what the products of them might possibly be the last thing that he would think of would be how that any of these places should serve the ends or pretences of the Church of Rome For to instance in one of the particulars that man had need have a strong fancy who imagines that because Christ prayed for S. Peter that being he had design'd him to be one of those upon whose preaching and Doctrine he did mean to constitute a Church his faith might not fail for it was necessary that no bitterness or stopping should be in one of the first springs lest the current be either spoil'd or obstructed that therefore the faith of Pope Alexander VI. or Gregory or Clement 1500 years after should be preserved by virtue of that prayer which the form of words the time the occasion the manner of the address the effect it self and all the circumstances of the action and person did determine to be personal And when it was more then personal S. Peter did not represent his Successors at Rome but the whole Catholick Church say Aquinas and the Divines of the University of Paris Volunt enim pro sola Ecclesia esse oratum says Bellarmine of them and the gloss upon the Canon Law plainly denies the effect of this prayer at all to appertain to the Pope Quaere de qua Ecclesia intelligas quod hîc dicitur quòd non possit errare an de ipso Papa qui Ecclesia dicitur sed certum est quòd Papa errare potest Respondeo ipsa Congregatio fidelium hîc dicitur Ecclesia talis Ecclesia non potest non esse nam ipse Dominus orat pro Ecclesia voluntate labiorum suorum non fraudabitur But there is a little danger in this Argument when we well consider it but it is likely to redound on the head of them whose turns it should serve For it may be remembred that for all this prayer of Christ for S. Peter the good man fell foully and denied his Master shamefully And shall Christ's prayer be of greater efficacy for his Successors for whom it was made but indirectly and by consequence then for himself for whom it was directly and in the first intention And if not then for all this Argument the Popes may deny Christ as well as their chief predecessor Peter But it would not be forgotten how the Roman Doctors will by no means allow that S. Peter was then the chief Bishop or Pope when he denied his Master But then much less was he chosen chief Bishop when the prayer was made for him because the prayer was made before his fall that is before that time in which it is confessed he was not as yet made Pope And how then the whole Succession of the Papacy should be entitled to it passes the length of my hand to span But then also if it be supposed and allowed that these words shall intail infallibility upon the Chair of Rome why shall not also all the Apostolical Sees be infallible as well as Rome why shall not Constantinople or Byzantium where S. Andrew sate why shall not Ephesus where S. John sate or Jerusalem where S. James sate for Christ prayed for them all ut Pater sanctificaret eos suâ veritate Joh. 17. 4. Secondly For tibi dabo claves was it personal or not If it were then the Bishops of Rome have nothing to do with it If it were not then by what Argument will it be made evident that S. Peter in the promise represented onely his Successors and not the whole Colledge of Apostles and the whole Hierarchy For if S. Peter was chief of the Apostles and Head of the Church he might fair enough be the representative of the whole Colledge and receive it in their right as well as his own which also is certain that it was so for the same promise of binding and loosing which certainly was all that the Keys were given for was made afterward to all the Apostles Matt. 18. and the power of remitting and retaining which in reason and according to the style of the Church is the same thing in other words was actually given to all the Apostles and unless that was the performing the first and second promise we find it not recorded in Scripture how or when or whether yet or no the promise be performed That promise I say which did not pertain to Peter principally and by origination and to the rest by Communication society and adherence but that promise which was made to Peter first but not for himself but for all the Colledge and for all their Successors and then made the second time to them all without representation but in diffusion and perform'd to all alike in presence except S. Thomas And if he went to S. Peter to derive it from him I know not I find no record for that but that Christ conveyed the promise to him by the same Commission the Church yet never doubted nor had she any reason But this matter is too notorious I say no more to it but repeat the words and Argument of S. Austin Si hoc Petro tantùm dictum est non facit hoc Ecclesia if the Keys were onely given and so promised to S. Peter that the Church hath not the Keys then the Church can neither bind nor loose remit nor retain which God forbid If any man should endeavour to answer this Argument I leave him and S. Austin to contest it 5. Thirdly For Pasce oves there is little in that Allegation besides the boldness of the Objectors for were not all the Apostles bound to feed Christ's sheep had they not all the Commission from Christ and Christ's Spirit immediately S. Paul had certainly Did not S. Peter himself say to all
from the person to the confession of Peter and declared that to be the foundation of the Church And thus I have requited fancy with fancy but for the main point that these two Expositions are inclusive of each other I find no warrant For though they may consist together well enough if Christ had so intended them yet unless it could be shewn by some circumstance of the Text or some other extrinsecall Argument that they must be so and that both senses were actually intended it is but gratìs dictum and a begging of the Question to say that they are so and the fancy so new that when S. Austin had expounded this place of the person of Peter he reviews it again and in his Retractions leaves every man to his liberty which to take as having nothing certain in this Article which had been altogether needless if he had believed them to be inclusively in each other neither of them had need to have been retracted both were alike true both of them might have been believed But I said the fancy was new and I had reason for it was so unknown till yesterday that even the late Writers of his own side expound the words of the confession of S. Peter exclusively to his person or any thing else as is to be seen in Marsilius Petrus de Aliaco and the gloss upon Dist. 19. can ità Dominus § ut suprá Which also was the Interpetation of Phavorinus Camers their own Bishop from whom they learnt the resemblance of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which they have made so many gay discourses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. Fifthly But upon condition I may have leave at another time to recede from so great and numerous Testimony of Fathers I am willing to believe that it was not the confession of S. Peter but his person upon which Christ said he would build his Church or that these Expositions are consistent with and consequent to each other that this confession was the objective foundation of Faith and Christ and his Apostles the subjective Christ principally and S. Peter instrumentally and yet I understand not any advantage will hence accrue to the See of Rome For upon S. Peter it was built but not alone for it was upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone and when S. Paul reckoned the Oeconomy of Hierarchy he reckons not Peter first and then the Apostles but first Apostles secondarily Prophets c. And whatsoever is first either is before all things else or at least nothing is before it So that at least S. Peter is not before all the rest of the Apostles which also S. Paul expresly averrs I am in nothing inferiour to the very chiefest of the Apostles no not in the very being a Rock and a Foundation and it was of the Church of Ephesus that S. Paul said in particular it was columna firmamentum veritatis that Church was not excluding others for they also were as much as she for so we keep close and be united to the corner-stone although some be master-builders yet all may build and we have known whole Nations converted by Lay-men and women who have been builders so far as to bring them to the corner-stone 8. Sixthly But suppose all these things concern S. Peter in all the capacities can be with any colour pretended yet what have the Bishops of Rome to doe with this For how will it appear that these promises and Commissions did relate to him as a particular Bishop and not as a publick Apostle since this latter is so much the more likely because the great pretence of all seems in reason more proportionable to the founding of a Church then its continuance And yet if they did relate to him as a particular Bishop which yet is a farther degree of improbability removed farther from certainty yet why shall S. Clement or Linus rather succeed in this great office of Headship then S. John or any of the Apostles that survived Peter It is no way likely a private person should skip over the head of an Apostle Or why shall his Successors at Rome more enjoy the benefit of it then his Successors at Antioch since that he was at Antioch and preached there we have a Divine Authority but that he did so at Rome at most we have but a humane And if it be replied that because he died at Rome it was Argument enough that there his Successors were to inherit his privilege this besides that at most it is but one little degree of probability and so not of strength sufficient to support an Article of faith it makes that the great Divine Right of Rome and the Apostolical presidency was so contingent and fallible as to depend upon the decree of Nero and if he had sent him to Antioch there to have suffered Martyrdome the Bishops of that Town had been heads of the Catholick Church And this thing presses the harder because it is held by no mean persons in the Church of Rome that the Bishoprick of Rome and the Papacy are things separable and the Pope may quit that See and sit in another which to my understanding is an Argument that he that succeeded Peter at Antioch is as much supreme by Divine Right as he that sits at Rome both alike that is neither by Divine Ordinance For if the Roman Bishops by Christ's intention were to be Head of the Church then by the same intention the Succession must be continued in that See and then let the Pope go whither he will the Bishop of Rome must be the Head which they themselves deny and the Pope himself did not believe when in a schism he sat at Avignon And that it was to be continued in the See of Rome it is but offered to us upon conjecture upon an act of providence as they fansy it so ordering it by vision and this proved by an Author which themselves call fabulous and Apocryphal under the name of Linus in Biblioth PP de passione Petri Pauli A goodly building which relies upon an event that was accidental whose purpose was but insinuated the meaning of it but conjectured at and this conjecture so uncertain that it was an imperfect aim at the purpose of an event which whether it was true or no was so uncertain that it is ten to one there was no such matter And yet again another degree of uncertainty is to whom the Bishops of Rome do succeed For S. Paul was as much Bishop of Rome as S. Peter was there he presided there he preached and he it was that was the Doctor of the Uncircumcision and of the Gentiles S. Peter of the Circumcision and of the Jews onely and therefore the converted Jews at Rome might with better reason claim the privilege of S. Peter then the Romans and the Churches in her Communion who do not derive from Jewish
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
but alter his Opinion whereby he is perswaded that such an accident that afflicts him is an evil and such an object formidable let him but believe himself impregnable or that he receives a benefit when he is plundered disgraced imprisoned condemned and afflicted neither his steps need to be disturbed nor his quietness discomposed But if a man cannot change his Opinion when he lists nor ever does heartily or resolutely but when he cannot doe otherwise then to use force may make him an Hypocrite but never to be a right Believer and so in stead of erecting a trophee to God and true Religion we build a monument for the Devil Infinite examples are recorded in Church-story to this very purpose But Socrates instances in one for all for when Eleusius Bishop of Cyzicum was threatned by the Emperour Valens with banishment and confiscation if he did not subscribe to the Decree of Ariminum at last he yielded to the Arian Opinion and presently fell into great torment of Conscience openly at Cyzicum recanted the errour asked God and the Church forgiveness and complained of the Emperour's injustice and that was all the good the Arian party got by offering violence to his Conscience And so many families in Spain which are as they call them new Christians and of a suspected Faith into which they were forced by the tyranny of the Inquisition and yet are secret Moors are evidence enough of the inconvenience of preaching a Doctrine in ore gladii cruentandi For it either punishes a man for keeping a good Conscience or forces him into a bad it either punishes sincerity or perswades hypocrisie it persecutes a truth or drives into errour and it teaches a man to dissemble and to be safe but never to be honest 12. Ninthly It is one of the glories of Christian Religion that it was so pious excellent miraculous and perswasive that it came in upon its own piety and wisedome with no other force but a torrent of arguments and demonstration of the Spirit a mighty rushing wind to beat down all strong holds and every high thought and imagination but towards the persons of men it was always full of meekness and charity compliance and toleration condescention and bearing with one another restoring persons overtaken with an errour in the spirit of meekness considering lest we also be tempted The consideration is as prudent and the proposition as just as the precept is charitable and the precedent was pious and holy Now things are best conserved with that which gives it the first being and which is agreeable to its temper and constitution That precept which it chiefly preaches in order to all the blessedness in the world that is of meekness mercy and charity should also preserve itself and promote its own interest For indeed nothing will doe it so well nothing doth so excellently insinuate itself into the understandings and affections of men as when the actions and perswasions of a Sect and every part and principle and promotion are univocall And it would be a mighty disparagement to so glorious an Institution that in its principle it should be mercifull and humane and in the promotion and propagation of it so inhumane And it would be improbable and unreasonable that the sword should be used in the perswasion of one Proposition and yet in the perswasion of the whole Religion nothing like it To doe so may serve the end of a temporal Prince but never promote the honour of Christ's Kingdom it may secure a design of Spain but will very much disserve Christendom to offer to support it by that which good men believe to be a distinctive cognizance of the Mahometan Religion from the excellency and piety of Christianity whose sense and spirit is described in those excellent words of Saint Paul 2 Tim. 2.24 The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging the truth They that oppose themselves must not be strucken by any of God's servants and if yet any man will smite these who are his opposites in Opinion he will get nothing by that he must quit the title of being a servant of God for his pains And I think a distinction of persons Secular and Ecclesiasticall will doe no advantage for an escape because even the Secular power if it be Christian and a servant of God must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I mean in those cases where meekness of instruction is the remedy or if the case be irremediable abscission by Censures is the penalty 13. Tenthly And if yet in the nature of the thing it were neither unjust nor unreasonable yet there is nothing under God Almighty that hath power over the Soul of man so as to command a perswasion or to judge a disagreeing Humane positive Laws direct all externall acts in order to several ends and the Judges take cognizance accordingly but no man can command the Will or punish him that obeys the Law against his will for because its end is served in externall obedience it neither looks after more neither can it be served by more nor take notice of any more And yet possibly the Understanding is less subject to humane power then the Will for that humane power hath a command over externall acts which naturally and regularly flow from the Will ut plurimùm suppose a direct act of will but always either a direct or indirect volition primâ—ry or accidental but the Understanding is a natural faculty subject to no command but where the command is itself a reason fit to satisfie perswade it And therefore God commanding us to believe such Revelations perswades and satisfies the understanding by his commanding and revealing for there is no greater probation in the world that Proposition is true then because God hath commanded us to believe it But because no man's command is a satisfaction to the understanding or a verification of the Proposition therefore the understanding is not subject to humane Authority They may perswade but not injoyn where God hath not and where God hath if it appears so to him he is an Infidel if he does not believe it And if all men have no other efficacy or authority on the understanding but by perswasion proposal and intreaty then a man is bound to assent but according to the operation of the argument and the energy of perswasion neither indeed can he though he would never so fain and he that out of fear and too much compliance and desire to be safe shall desire to bring his understanding with some luxation to the belief of humane Dictates and Authorities may as often miss of the Truth as hit it but is sure always to lose the comfort of Truth because he believes it upon indirect insufficient and incompetent arguments and as his desire it should be so is his best argument that it is so so the
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
from Christ it is a receiving Christ which is the duty here enjoyned this is one way of doing it and all the ways that they are capable of And that this precept can be performed this way S. Augustine affirms expresly in his third book de peccatorum meritis remissione In this thing there is nothing hard but the metaphors of eating and drinking Now that this is to be spiritually understood our Blessed Lord himself affirms in answer to the prejudice of the offended Capernaites that it is to be understood of Faith and that Faith is the spiritual manducation is the sense of the ancient Church and therefore in what sense soever any one is obliged to believe in the same sense he is obliged to the duty of spiritual manducation and no otherwise But because Infants cannot be obliged to the act or habit of Faith and yet can receive the Sacrament of Faith they receive Christ as they can and as they can are intitled to life But however by this means the difficulty of the expression is taken off for if by eating and drinking Christ is meant receiving Christ by Faith then this phrase can be no objection but that S. Austin's affirmative may be true and that this commandment is performed by Infants in Baptism which is the Sacrament of Faith To eat and drink does with as great impropriety signifie Faith as Baptism but this is it which I said at first that the metaphoricall expression was no part of the precept but the vehiculum of the Commandment occasioned by the preceding discourse of our Blessed Saviour and nothing is necessary but that Christ should be received by all that would have life eternall of which because Infants are capable and without receiving Christ they by virtue of these words are not capable and but in Baptism they cannot receive Christ it follows that these words are no argument to infer an equal necessity of communicating Infants but they are a good argument to prove a necessity of baptizing them Secondly But farther yet I demand can Infants receive Christ in the Eucharist Can they in that Sacrament eat the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud If they cannot then neither these words nor any other can infer an equal necessity of being communicated for they can infer none at all and whether those other words of Nisi quis renatus fuerit c. do infer a necessity of Baptism will be sufficiently cleared upon their own account But if Infants can receive Christ in the Eucharist to which they can no more dispose themselves by Repentance then they can to Baptism by Faith then it were indeed very well if they were communicated but yet not necessary because if they can receive Christ in the Eucharist they can receive Christ in Baptism and if they can receive him any way this precept is performed by that way and then whether they must also be communicated must be enquired by other arguments for whatsoever is in these words intended is performed by any way of receiving Christ and therefore cannot infer more in all circumstances and to all persons Thirdly Suppose these words were to be expounded of Sacramentall manducation of the flesh of Christ in the Lord's Supper yet it does not follow that Infants are as much bound to receive the Communion as to receive the Baptism It is too crude a fancy to think that all universal Propositions whether affirmative or negative equally expressed do signifie an equal universality It is said in the Law of Moses Whosoever is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people this indeed signifies universally and included Infants binding them to that Sacrament But when it was said Whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death whether small or great although these words be expressed with as great a latitude as the other yet it is certain it did not include Infants who could not seek the Lord. The same is the case of the two Sacraments the obligation to which we do not understand onely by the preceptive words or form of the commandments but by other appendages and the words of duty that are relative to the suscipients of the several Sacraments and the analogy of the whole Institution Baptism is the Sacrament of beginners the Eucharist of proficients that is the birth this is the nourishment of a Christian. There are many more things of difference to be observ'd But as the Church in several Ages hath practised severally in this Article so in the particular there is no such certainty but that the Church may without sin doe it or not doe it as she sees cause but that there is not the same necessity in both to all persons and that no necessity of communicating Infants can be inferr'd from the parallel words appears in the former answers and therefore I stand to them Ad 9. The summe of the sixth Argument is this The promise of the Holy Ghost is made to all to us and to our children and if the Holy Ghost belong to them then Baptism belongs to them also because Baptism is the means of conveying the Holy Ghost as appears in the words of S. Peter Be baptized and ye shall receive the holy Ghost as also because from this very argument S. Peter resolved to baptize Cornelius and his family because they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost for they that are capable of the same grace are receptive of the same sign Now that Infants also can receive the effects of the Holy Spirit is evident because besides that the promise of the Holy Ghost is made to all to us and our posterity S. Paul affirms that the children of believing parents are holy but all holiness is an emanation from the Holy Spirit of God Ad 19. To the words of S. Peter they answer that the promise does appertain to our children that is to our posterity but not till they are capable they have the same right which we have but enter not into possession of their right till they have the same capacity for by children are not meant Infants but as the children of Israel signifies the descendents onely so it is here And indeed this is true enough but not pertinent enough to answer the intention and efficiency of these words For I do not suppose that the word children means Infants but you and your children must mean all generations of Christendom all the descendents of Christian parents and if they belong to their posterity because they are theirs then the Promises belong to all that are so and then children cannot be excluded But I demand have not the children of believing parents a title to the Promises of the Gospel If they have none then the Kingdom of Heaven belongs not to such and if they die we can doe nothing but despair of their Salvation which is a proposition whose barbarity and unreasonable cruelty confutes itself But if they
the Baptism of whole Families in which children are as well to be reckoned as the uninstructed servants and if actual Faith be not required before Baptism even of those who are naturally capable of it as it is notorious in the case of the Gaolour who believed and at that very hour he and all his family were baptized then want of Faith cannot prejudice Infants and then nothing can Sixthly There was never in the Church a command against the baptizing Infants and whereas it is urged that in the Council of Neocaesarea the Baptism of a pregnant woman did no way relate to the child and that the reason there given excludes all Infants upon the same account because every one is to shew his Faith by his own choice and election I answer that this might very well be in those times where Christianity had not prevailed but was forced to dispute for every single proselyte and the mother was a Christian and the Father a Heathen there was reason that the child should be let alone till he could chuse for himself when peradventure it was not fit his father should chuse for him and that is the meaning of the words of Balsamo and Zonaras upon that Canon But secondly the words of the Neocaesarean Canon are not rightly considered For the reason is not relative to the child but onely to the woman concerning whom the Council thus decreed The woman with child may be baptized when she will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For her Baptism reaches not to the child because every one confesses his Faith by his own act and choice that is the woman confesses onely for herself she intends it onely for herself she chuses onely for herself and therefore is onely baptized for herself But this intimates that if she could confess for her child the Baptism would relate to her child but therefore when the Parents do confess for the child or the Godfathers and that the child is baptized into that confession it is valid However nothing in this Canon is against it I have now considered all that the Anabaptists can with probability object against our Arguments and have discovered the weakness of their exceptions by which although they are and others may be abused yet it is their weakness that is the cause of it for which although the men are to be pitied yet it may appear now that their cause is not at all the better Ad 28. It remains that I consider their own Arguments by which they support themselves in their misperswasion First It is against the analogie of the Gospel for besides that Christ never baptized any Infants nor his Apostles there is required to Baptism Faith and Repentance of which because Infants are not capable neither are they capable of the Sacrament To these things I answer that it is true Christ never baptized Infants for he baptized no person at all but he blessed Infants and what that amounts to I have already discoursed and he gave a commandment of Baptism which did include them also as I have proved in the foregoing periods and in other places That the Apostles never baptized Infants is boldly said but can never be proved But then as to the main of the Argument that Faith and Repentance are pre-required I answer It is in this as it was in Circumcision to which a Proselyte could not be admitted form Gentilism or Idolatry unless he gave up his name to the Religion and believed in God and his servant Moses but yet their children might and it might have been as well argued against their children as ours since in their Proselytes and ours there were required predispositions of Faith and Repentance 2. But it is no wonder that these are called for by the Apostles of those whom they invited to the Religion they dealt with men of reason but such who had superinduced foul sins to their infidelity which were to be removed before they could be illuminated and baptized but Infants are in their pure naturals therefore nothing hinders them from receiving the gifts meer graces of God's Holy Spirit before-mentioned 3. But we see also that although Christ required Faith of them who came to be healed yet when any were brought or came in behalf of others he onely required Faith of them who came and their Faith did benefit to others For no man can call on him on whom they have not believed but therefore they who call must believe and if they call for others they must believe that Christ can doe it for others But this instance is so certain a reproof of this Objection of theirs which is their principal which is there all that it is a wonder to me they should not all be convinced at the reading and observing of it I knew an eminent person amongst them who having been abused by their fallacies upon the discovery of the falshood of this their main allegation was converted I know also some others who could not at all object against it but if they had been as humble as they were apprehensive would certainly have confessed their errour But to this I can adde nothing new beyond what I have largely discoursed of in the Treatise of Baptism before-mentioned Ad 30. The next Argument is If Baptism be necessary to infants upon whom is the imposition laid to whom is the command given The Children are not capable of a Law therefore it is not given to them nor yet to the parents because if so then the Salvation of Infants should be put into the power of others who may be careless or malicious I answer that there is no precept of baptizing Infants just in that circumstance of age for then they had sinned who had deferred it upon just grounds to their manhood But it is a precept given to all and it is made necessary by that order of things which Christ hath constituted in the New Testament so that if they be baptized at all in their just period there is no commandment broken but if Infants come not to be men then it was accidentally necessary they should have been baptized before they were men And now to the enquiry upon whom the imposition lies it is easie to give an answer it lies upon them who can receive it and therefore upon the parents not so that the Salvation of Infants depends upon others God forbid but so that if they neglect the charitable ministry they shall dearly account for it It is easie to be understood by two Instances God commanded that children should be circumcised Moses by his wife's peevishness neglected it and therefore the Lord sought to kill him for it not Gershom the child It is necessary for the preservation of childrens lives that they eat but the provisions of meat for them is a duty incumbent on the parents and yet if parents expose their children it may be the lives of the children shall not depend on others but when their father and mother forsaketh them
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
them that is the worst that is to be done to such a man in Saint Paul's judgement Yet count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother SECT XXI Of the Duty of particular Churches in allowing Communion 1. FRom these Premisses we are easily instructed concerning the lawfulness or duty respectively of Christian Communion which is differently to be considered in respect of particular Churches to each other and of particular men to particular Churches For as for particular Churches they are bound to allow Communion to all those that profess the same Faith upon which the Apostles did give Communion For whatsoever preserves us as members of the Church gives us title to the Communion of Saints and whatsoever Faith or belief that is to which God hath promised Heaven that Faith makes us members of the Catholick Church Since therefore the judicial Acts of the Church are then most prudent and religious when they nearest imitate the example and piety of God to make the Way to Heaven streighter then God made it or to deny to communicate with those with whom God will vouchsafe to be united and to refuse our charity to those who have the same Faith because they have not all our Opinions and believe not every thing necessary which we overvalue is impious and schismaticall it infers tyranny on one part and perswades and tempts to uncharitableness and animosities on both it dissolves Societies and is an enemy to peace it busies men in impertinent wranglings and by names of men and titles of factions it consigns the interessed parties to act their differences to the height and makes them neglect those advantages which piety and a good life bring to the reputation of Christian Religion and societies 2. And therefore Vincentius Lirinensis and indeed the whole Church accounted the Donatists Hereticks upon this very ground because they did imperiously deny their Communion to all that were not of their perswasion whereas the Authours of that Opinion for which they first did separate and make a Sect because they did not break the Churche's peace nor magisterially prescribed to others were in that disagreeing and errour accounted Catholicks Divisio enim disunio facit vos haereticos pax unitas faciunt Catholicos said Saint Augustin And to this sense is that of Saint Paul If I had all faith and had not charity I am nothing He who upon confidence of his true belief denies a charitable Communion to his brother loses the reward of both And if Pope Victor had been as charitable to the Asiaticks as Pope Anicetus and Saint Polycarp were to each other in the same disagreeing concerning Easter Victor had not been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so bitterly reproved and condemned as he was for the uncharitable managing of his disagreeing by Polycrates and Irenaeus Concordia enim quae est charitatis effectus est unio voluntatum non opinionum True Faith which leads to Charity leads on to that which unites wills and affections not Opinions 3. Upon these or the like considerations the Emperour Zeno published his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which he made the Nicene Creed to be the medium of Catholick Communion and although he lived after the Council of Chalcedon yet he made not the Decrees of that Council an instrument of its restraint and limit as preferring the peace of Christendom and the union of charity far before a forced or pretended unity of perswasion which never was nor ever will be real and substantial and although it were very convenient if it could be had yet it is therefore not necessary because it is impossible And if men please whatever advantages to the publick would be consequent to it may be supplied by a charitable compliance and mutuall permission of Opinion and the offices of a brotherly affection prescribed us by the Laws of Christianity And we have seen it that all Sects of Christians when they have an end to be served upon a third have permitted that liberty to a second which we now contend for and which they formerly denied but now grant that by joyning hands they might be the stronger to destroy the third The Arians and Meletians joyned against the Catholicks the Catholicks and Novatians joyned against the Arians Now if men would doe that for charity which they doe for interest it were handsomer and more ingenuous For that they do permit each others disagreeings for their interests sake convinceth them of the lawfulness of the thing or else the unlawfulness of their own proceedings And therefore it were better they would serve the ends of charity then of faction for then that good end would hallow the proceeding and make it both more prudent and more pious while it serves the design of religious purposes SECT XXII That particular men may communicate with Churches of different Perswasions and how far they may doe it 1. AS for the duty of particular men in the Question of communicating with Churches of different perswasions it is to be regulated according to the Laws of those Churches For if they require no impiety or any thing unlawfull as the condition of their Communion then they communicate with them as they are servants of Christ as disciples of his Doctrine and subjects to his laws and the particular distinguishing Doctrine of their Sect hath no influence or communication with him who from another Sect is willing to communicate with all the servants of their common Lord. For since no Church of one name is infallible a wise man may have either the misfortune or a reason to believe of every one in particular that she errs in some Article or other either he cannot communicate with any or else he may communicate with all that do not make a sin or the profession of an errour to be the condition of their Communion And therefore as every particular Church is bound to tolerate disagreeing persons in the senses and for the reasons above explicated so every particular person is bound to tolerate her that is not to refuse her Communion when he may have it upon innocent conditions For what is it to me if the Greek Church denies Procession of the third Person from the second so she will give me the right hand of fellowship though I affirm it therefore because I profess the Religion of Jesus Christ and retain all matters of Faith and necessity But this thing will scarce be reduced to practice for few Churches that have framed bodies of Confession and Articles will endure any person that is not of the same Confession which is a plain demonstration that such bodies of Confession Articles doe much hurt by becoming instruments of separating and dividing Communions and making unnecessary or uncertain propositions a certain means of Schism and disunion But then men would doe well to consider whether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of Schism upon them who least think it and whether of the two is the
Prophesying or Preaching which yet all Christians know does abide with the Church for ever 5. To every ordinary and perpetual Ministery at first there were extraordinary effects and miraculous consignations We find great parts of Nations converted at one Sermon Three thousand Converts came in at once Preaching of S. Peter and five thousand at another Sermon and persons were miraculously cured by the Prayer of the Bishop in his visitation of a sick Christian and Devils cast out in the conversion of a sinner and Blindness cur'd at the Baptism of S. Paul and Aeneas was healed of a Palsie at the same time he was cur'd of his Infidelity and Eutychus was restor'd to life at the Preaching of S. Paul And yet that now we see no such Extraordinaries it follows not that the Visitation of the sick and Preaching Sermons and Absolving Penitents are not ordinary and perpetual ministrations and therefore to fansy that invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands is to cease when the extraordinary and temporary contingencies of it are gone is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance against so Sacred an Institution relying upon so many Scriptures 6. With this Objection some vain persons would have troubled the Church in S. Austin's time but he considered it with much indignation writing against the Donatists His words are these At the first times the Holy Spirit fell upon the Believers and they spake with Tongues which they had not learned according as the Spirit gave them utterance They were Signs fitted for the season for so the Holy Ghost ought to have signified in all Tongues because the Gospel of God was to run through all the Nations and Languages of the World so it was signified and so it pass'd through But is it therefore expected that they upon whom there is Imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost that they should speak with Tongues Or when we lay hands on Infants does every one of you attend to hear them speak with Tongues And when he sees that they do not speak with Tongues is any of you of so perverse a heart as to say They have not received the Holy Ghost for if they had received him they would speak with Tongues as it was done at first But if by these Miracles there is not now given any testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit how doth any one know that he hath received the Holy Ghost Interroget cor suum Si diligit fratrem manet Spiritus Dei in illo It is true the Gift of Tongues doth not remain but all the greater Gifts of the Holy Spirit remain with the Church for ever Sanctification and Power Fortitude and Hope Faith and Love Let every man search his Heart and see if he belongs to God whether the love of God be not spread in his heart by the Spirit of God Let him see if he be not patient in Troubles comforted in his Afflictions bold to confess the Faith of Christ crucified zealous of Good works These are the miracles of Grace and the mighty powers of the Spirit according to that saying of Christ These signs shall follow them that believe In my Name shall they cast out Devils they shall speak with new Tongues they shall tread on Serpents they shall drink poison and it shall not hurt them and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover That which we call the Miraculous part is the less power but to cast out the Devil of Lust to throw down the Pride of Lucifer to tread on the great Dragon and to triumph over our Spiritual enemies to cure a diseased Soul to be unharmed by the poison of Temptation of evil Examples and evil Company these are the true signs that shall follow them that truly and rightly believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus this is to live in the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit this is more than to receive the Spirit to a power of Miracles and supernatural products in a natural matter For this is from a supernatural principle to receive supernatural aids to a supernatural end in the Diviner spirit of a man and this being more miraculous than the other it ought not to be pretended that the discontinuance of extraordinary Miracles should cause the discontinuance of an ordinary Ministration and this is that which I was to prove 7. To which it is not amiss to add this Observation that Simon Magus offered to buy this power of the Apostles that he also by laying on of hands might thus minister the Spirit Now he began this sin in the Christian Church and it is too frequent at this day but if all this power be gone then nothing of that sin can remain if the subject matter be removed then the appendant crime cannot abide and there can be no Simony so much as by participation and whatever is or can be done in this kind is no more of this Crime than Drunkenness is of Adultery it relates to it or may be introductive of it or be something like it But certainly since the Church is not so happy as to be intirely free from the Crime of Simony it will be hard to say that the power the buying of which was the principle of this sin and therefore the Rule of all the rest should be removed and the house stand without a foundation the relative without the correspondent the accessary without the principal and the accident without the subject This is impossible and therefore it remains that still there abides in the Church this power that by Imposition of the Hands of fit persons the Holy Ghost is ministred But this will be further cleared in the next Section SECT III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit or Confirmation was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church NExt to the plain words of Scripture the traditive Interpretation and Practice of the Church of God is the best Argument in the World for Rituals and Mystical ministrations for the Tradition is universal and all the way acknowledged to be derived from Scripture And although in Rituals the Tradition it self if it be universal and primitive as this is were alone sufficient and is so esteemed in the Baptism of Infants in the Priests consecrating the Holy Eucharist in publick Liturgies in Absolution of Penitents the Lord's Day Communicating of Women and the like yet this Rite of Confirmation being all that and evidently derived from the practice Apostolical and so often recorded in the New Testament both in the Ritual and Mysterious part both in the Ceremony and Spiritual effect is a point of as great Certainty as it is of Usefulness and holy designation Theophilus Antiochenus lived not long after the death of S. John and he derives the name of Christian which was first given to the Disciples in his City from this Chrism or
Imposition of hands and represents it besides in the Expression and Analogy of any sensible thing that Expression drawn into a Ceremony will not improperly signifie the Grace since the Holy Ghost did chuse that for his own expression and representment In Baptism we are said to be buried with Christ. The Church does according to the Analogy of that expression when she immerges the Catechumen in the Font for then she represents the same thing which the Holy Ghost would have to be represented in that Sacrament the Church did but the same thing when she used Chrism in this ministration This I speak in justification of that ancient practice but because there was no command for it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Basil concerning Chrism there is no written word that is of the Ceremony there is not he said it not of the whole Rite of Confirmation therefore though to this we are all bound yet as to the Anointing the Church is at liberty and hath with sufficient authority omitted it in our ministrations In the Liturgy of King Edward the VI. the Bishops used the sign of the Cross upon the Foreheads of them that were to be Confirmed I do not find it since forbidden or revoked by any expression or intimation saving only that it is omitted in our later Offices and therefore it may seem to be permitted to the discretion of the Bishops but yet not to be used unless where it may be for Edification and where it may be by the consent of the Church at least by interpretation concerning which I have nothing else to interpose but that neither this nor any thing else which is not of the nature and institution of the Rite ought to be done by private Authority nor ever at all but according to the Apostle's Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever is decent and whatsoever is according to Order that is to be done and nothing else for Prayer and Imposition of hands for the invocating and giving the Holy Spirit is all that is in the foundation and institution SECT VI. Many great Graces and Blessings are consequent to the worthy Reception and due Ministery of Confirmation IT is of it self enough when it is fully understood what is said in the Acts of the Apostles at the first ministration of this Rite They received the Holy Ghost that is according to the expression of our Blessed Saviour himself to the Apostles when he commanded them in Jerusalem to expect the verification of his glorious promise they were endued with vertue from on high that is with strength to perform their duty which although it is not to be understood exclusively to the other Rites and Ministeries of the Church of Divine appointment yet it is properly and most signally true and as it were in some sence appropriate to this For as Aquinas well discourses the Grace of Christ is not tied to the Sacraments but even this Spiritual strength and vertue from on high can be had without Confirmation as without Baptism Remission of sins may be had and yet we believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins and one Confirmation for the obtaining this vertue from on high this strength of the Spirit But it is so appropriate to it by promise and peculiarity of ministration that as without the Desire of Baptism our sins are not pardon'd so without at least the Desire of Confirmation we cannot receive this vertue from on high which is appointed to descend in the ministery of the Spirit It is true the ministery of the Holy Eucharist is greatly effective to this purpose and therefore in the ages of Martyrs the Bishops were careful to give the people the Holy Communion frequently Vt quos tutos esse contra adversarium volebant munimento Dominicae Saturitatis amarent as S. Cyprian with his Collegues wrote to Cornelius that those whom they would have to be safe against the contentions of their adversaries they should arm them with the guards and defences of the Lord's Fulness But it is to be remembred that the Lord's Supper is for the more perfect Christians and it is for the increase of the Graces receiv'd formerly and therefore it is for Remission of sins and yet is no prejudice to the necessity of Baptism whose proper work is Remission of sins and therefore neither does it makes Confirmation unnecessary for it renews the work of both the precedent Rites and repairs the breaches and adds new Energy and proceeds in the same dispensations and is renewed often whereas the others are but once Excellent therefore are the words of John Gerson the Famous Chancellor of Paris to this purpose It may be said that in one way of speaking Confirmation is necessary and in another it is not Confirmation is not necessary as Baptism and Repentance for without these Salvation cannot be had This Necessity is Absolute but there is a Conditional Necessity Thus if a man would not become weak it is necessary that he eat his meat well And so Confirmation is necessary that the Spiritual life and the health gotten in Baptism may be preserv'd in strength against our spiritual enemies For this is given for strength Hence is that saying of Hugo de S. Victore What does it profit that thou art raised up by Baptism if thou art not able to stand by Confirmation Not that Baptism is not of value unto Salvation without Confirmation but because he who is not Confirmed will easily fall and too readily perish The Spirit of God comes which way he pleases but we are tied to use his own Oeconomy and expect the blessings appointed by his own Ministeries And because to Prayer is promised we shall receive what-ever we ask we may as well omit the receiving the Holy Eucharist pretending that Prayer alone will procure the blessings expected in the other as well I say as omit Confirmation because we hope to be strengthned and receive vertue from on high by the use of the Supper of the Lord. Let us use all the Ministeries of Grace in their season for we know not which shall prosper this or that or whether they shall be both alike good this only we know that the Ministeries which God appoints are the proper seasons and opportunities of Grace This power from on high which is the proper blessing of Confirmation was expressed not only in speaking with Tongues and doing Miracles for much of this they had before they received the Holy Ghost but it was effected in Spiritual and internal strengths they were not only enabled for the service of the Church but were indued with courage and wisdom and Christian fortitude and boldness to confess the Faith of Christ crucified and unity of heart and mind singleness of heart and joy in God when it was for the edification of the Church Miracles were done in Confirmations and S. Bernard in the Life of S. Malachias tells that S. Malchus Bishop of Lismore in Ireland confirmed a
lawful or not but which were better To Confirm Infants or to stay to their Childhood or to their riper years Aquinas Bonaventure and some others say it is best that they be Confirmed in their Infancy quia dolus non est nec obicem ponunt they are then without craft and cannot hinder the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them And indeed it is most agreeable with the Primitive practice that if they were Baptized in Infancy they should then also be Confirmed according to that of the famous Epistle of Melchiades to the Bishops of Spain Ità conjuncta sunt haec duo Sacramenta ut ab invicem nisi morte praeveniente non possint separari unum altero ritè persici non potest Where although he expresly affirms the Rites to be two yet unless it be in cases of necessity they are not to be severed and one without the other is not perfect which in the sence formerly mentioned is true and so to be understood That to him who is Baptized and is not Confirmed something very considerable is wanting and therefore they ought to be joyned though not immediately yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to reasonable occasions and accidental causes But in this there must needs be a liberty in the Church not only for the former reasons but also because the Apostles themselves were not Confirmed till after they had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Others therefore say That to Confirm them of Riper years is with more edification The confession of Faith is more voluntary the election is wiser the submission to Christ's discipline is more acceptable and they have more need and can make better use of their strengths than derived by the Holy Spirit of God upon them and to this purpose it is commanded in the Canon Law that they who are confirmed should be perfectae aetatis of full age upon which the Gloss says Perfectam vocat fortè duodecim annorum Twelve years old was a full age because at those years they might then be admitted to the lower services in the Church But the reason intimated and implied by the Canon is because of the Preparation to it They must come Fasting and they must make publick Confession of their Faith And indeed that they should do so is matter of great edification as also are the advantages of choice and other preparatory abilities and dispositions above-mentioned They are matter of edification I say when they are done but then the delaying of them so long before they be done and the wanting the aids of the Holy Ghost conveyed in that Ministery are very prejudicial and are not matter of edification But therefore there is a third way which the Church of England and Ireland follows and that is that after Infancy but yet before they understand too much of Sin and when they can competently understand the Fundamentals of Religion then it is good to bring them to be Confirmed that the Spirit of God may prevent their youthful sins and Christ by his Word and by his Spirit may enter and take possession at the same time And thus it was in the Church of England long since provided and commanded by the Laws of King Edgar cap. 15. Vt nullus ab Episcopo confirmari diu nimiùm detrectârit That none should too long put off his being Confirmed by the Bishop that is as is best expounded by the perpetual practice almost ever since as soon as ever by Catechism and competent instruction they were prepared it should not be deferred If it have been omitted as of late years it hath been too much as we do in Baptism so in this also it may be taken at any age even after they have received the Lord's Supper as I observed before in the Practice and Example of the Apostles themselves which in this is an abundant warrant But still the sooner the better I mean after that Reason begins to dawn but ever it must be taken care of that the Parents and God-fathers the Ministers and Masters see that the Children be catechised and well instructed in the Fundamentals of their Religion For this is the necessary preparation to the most advantageous reception of this Holy Ministery In Ecclesâ—is potissimùm Latinis non nisi adultiore aetate pueros admitti videmus vel hanc certè ob causam ut Parentibus Susceptoribus Ecclesiarum Praesectis occasio detur pueros de Fide quam in Baptismo professi sunt diligentiùs instituendi admonendi said the excellent Cassander In the Latin Churches they admit children of some ripeness of age that they may be more diligently taught and instructed in the Faith And to this sence agree S. Austin Walafridus Strabo Ruardus Lovaniensis and Mr. Calvin For this was ever the practice of the Primitive Church to be infinitely careful of Catechizing those who came and desired to be admitted to this holy Rite they used Exorcisms or Catechisms to prepare them to Baptism and Confirmation I said Exorcisms or Catechisms for they were the same thing if the notion be new yet I the more willingly declare it not only to free the Primitive Church from the suspicion of Superstition in using Charms or Exorcisms according to the modern sence of the word or casting of the Devil out of innocent Children but also to remonstrate the perpetual practice of Catechizing Children in the eldest and best times of the Church Thus the Greek Scholiast upon Harmenopulus renders the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Primitive Exorcist was the Catechist And Balsamon upon the 26. Canon of the Council of Laodicea says that to Exorcize is nothing but to Catechize the unbelievers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some undertook to Exorcize that is says he to Catechize the unbelievers And S. Cyril in his Preface to his Catechisms speaking to the Illuminati Festinent says he pedes tui ad Catecheses audiendas Exorcismos studiosè suscipe c. Let your feet run hastily to hear the Catechisms studiously receive the Exorcisms although thou beest already inspired and exorcized that is although you have been already instructed in the Mysteries yet still proceed For without Exorcisms or Catechisms the Soul cannot go forward since they are Divine and gathered out of the Scriptures And the reason why these were called Exorcisms he adds Because when the Exorcists or Catechists by the Spirit of God produce fear in your hearts and do inkindle the Spirit as in a furnace the Devil flies away and Salvation and hope of Life Eternal does succeed according to that of the Evangelist concerning Christ They were astonished at his Doctrine for his word was with power and that of S. Luke concerning Paul and Barnabas The Deputy when he saw what was done was astonished at the Doctrine of the Lord. It is the Lord's Doctrine that hath the power to cast out Devils and work Miracles Catechisms are the best Exorcisms
indearments and an habitual worthiness An old friend is like old wine which when a man hath drunk he doth not desire new because he saith the old is better But every old friend was new once and if he be worthy keep the new one till he become old 10. After all this treat thy friend nobly love to be with him do to him all the worthinesses of love and fair endearment according to thy capacity and his Bear with his infirmities till they approach towards being criminal but never dissemble with him never despise him never leave him Give him gifts and upbraid him not and refuse not his kindnesses and be sure never to despise the smallness or the impropriety of them Confirmatur amor beneficio accepto A gift saith Solomon fasteneth friendships For as an eye that dwells long upon a Star must be refreshed with lesser beauties and strengthened with greens and Looking-glasses lest the sight become amazed with too great a splendor So must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low Caresses lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane It must be allowed its share of both It is humane in giving pardon and fair construction and openness and ingenuity and keeping secrets it hath something that is divine because it is beneficent but much because it is eternal POSTSCRIPT MADAM IF you shall think it fit that these Papers pass further than your own eye and Closet I desire they may be consign'd into the hands of my worthy friend Dr. Wedderburne For I do not only expose all my sickness to his cure but I submit my weaknesses to his censure being as confident to find of him charity for what is pardonable as remedy for what is curable But indeed Madam I look upon that worthy man as an Idea of Friendship and if I had no other notices of Friendship or conversation to instruct me than His it were sufficient For whatsoever I can say of Friendship I can say of His and as all that know Him reckon Him amongst the best Physicians so I know Him worthy to be reckoned amongst the best Friends TWO LETTERS TO PERSONS Changed in their RELIGION The First to a Gentlewoman Seduced to the Church of Rome The other to a Person Returning to the Church of England Volo Solidum Perenne THE FIRST LETTER M. B. I WAS desirous of an opportunity in London to have discoursed with you concerning something of nearest concernment to you but the multitude of my little affairs hindred me and have brought upon you this trouble to read a long Letter which yet I hope you will be more willing to do because it comes from one who hath a great respect to your person and a very great charity to your soul. I must confess I was on your behalf troubled when I heard you were fallen from the Communion of the Church of England and entred into a voluntary unnecessary Schism and departure from the Laws of the King and the Communion of those with whom you have always lived in charity going against those Laws in the defence and profession of which your Husband died going from the Religion in which you were Baptized in which for so many years you lived piously and hoped for Heaven and all this without any sufficient reason without necessity or just scandal ministred to you and to aggravate all this you did it in a time when the Church of England was persecuted when she was marked with the Characterisms of her Lord the marks of the Cross of Jesus that is when she suffered for a holy cause and a holy conscience when the Church of England was more glorious than at any time before Even when she could shew more Martyrs and Confessors than any Church this day in Christendom even then when a King died in the profession of her Religion and thousands of Priests learned and pious men suffered the spoiling of their goods rather than they would forsake one Article of so excellent a Religion So that seriously it is not easily to be imagined that any thing should move you unless it be that which troubled the perverse Jews and the Heathen Greek Scandalum crucis the scandal of the Cross. You stumbled at that Rock of offence You left us because we were afflicted lessened in outward circumstances and wrapped in a cloud But give me leave only to remind you of that sad saying of the Scripture that you may avoid the consequent of it They that fall on this stone shall be broken in pieces but they on whom it shall fall shall be grinded to powder And if we should consider things but prudently it is a great argument that the sons of our Church are very conscientious and just in their perswasions when it is evident that we have no temporal end to serve nothing but the great end of our souls all our hopes of preferment are gone all secular regards only we still have Truth on our sides and we are not willing with the loss of Truth to change from a persecuted to a prosperous Church from a Reformed to a Church that will not be reformed lest we give scandal to good people that suffer for a holy conscience and weaken the hands of the afflicted of which if you had been more careful you would have remained much more innocent But I pray give me leave to consider for you because you in your change considered so little for your self What fault what false doctrine what wicked and dangerous Proposition what defect what amiss did you find in the Doctrine and Liturgy and Discipline of the Church of England For its Doctrine It is certain it professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament all that which is in the three Creeds the Apostolical the Nicene and that of Athanasius and whatsoever was decreed in the four General Councils or in any other truly such and whatsoever was condemned in these our Church hath legally declared it to be Heresie And upon these accounts above four whole Ages of the Church went to Heaven they baptized all their Catechumens into this Faith their hopes of Heaven was upon this and a good life their Saints and Martyrs lived and died in this alone they denied Communion to none that professed this Faith This is the Catholick Faith so saith the Creed of Athanasius and unless a company of men have power to alter the Faith of God whosoever live and die in this Faith are intirely Catholick and Christian. So that the Church of England hath the same Faith without dispute that the Church had for 400 or 500 years and therefore there could be nothing wanting here to Saving Faith if we live according to our belief 2. For the Liturgy of the Church of England I shall not need to say much because the case will be every evident First Because the disputers of the Church of Rome have not been very forward to object any thing against it
they cannot charge it with any evil 2. Because for all the time of King Edward the Sixth and till the Eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth your people came to our Churches and prayed with us till the Bull of Pius Quintus came out upon temporal regards and made a Schism by forbidding the Queen's Subjects to pray as by Law was here appointed though the Prayers were good and holy as themselves did believe That Bull enjoyned Recusancy and made that which was an act of Rebellion and Disobedience and Schism to be the character of your Roman Catholicks And after this what can be supposed wanting in order to Salvation We have the Word of God the Faith of the Apostles the Creeds of the Primitive Church the Articles of the four first General Councils a holy Liturgy excellent Prayers perfect Sacraments Faith and Repentance the Ten Commandments and the Sermons of Christ and all the Precepts counsels of the Gospel We teach the necessity of good works and require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life We live in obedience to God and are ready to die for him and do so when he requires us so to do We speak honourably of his most holy Name we worship him at the mention of his Name we confess his Attributes we love his Servants we pray for all men we love all Christians even our most erring Brethren We confess our sins to God and to our Brethren whom we have offended and to God's Ministers in cases of Scandal or of a troubled Conscience We communicate often we are enjoyned to receive the holy Sacrament thrice every year at least Our Priests absolve the penitent our Bishops ordain Priests and Confirm baptized persons and bless their people and intercede for them and what could here be wanting to Salvation what necessity forced you from us I dare not suspect it was a Temporal regard that drew you away but I am sure it could be no Spiritual But now that I have told you and made you to consider from whence you went give me leave to represent to you and tell you whither you are gone that you may understand the nature and conditions of your change For do not think your self safe because they tell you that you are come to the Church You are indeed gone from one Church to another from a better to a worse as will appear in the induction the particulars of which before I reckon give me leave to give you this advice If you mean in this affair to understand what you do it were better you enquired what your Religion is than what your Church is For that which is a true Religion to day will be so to morrow and for ever but that which is a holy Church to day may be heretical at the next change or may betray her trust or obtrude new Articles in contradiction to the old or by new interpretations may elude ancient Truths or may change your Creed or may pretend to be the Spouse of Christ when she is idolatrous that is adulterous to God Your Religion is that which you must and therefore may competently understand You must live in it and grow in it and govern all the actions of your life by it and in all questions concerning the Church you are to chuse your Church by the Religion and therefore this ought first and last to be enquired after Whether the Roman Church be the Catholick Church must depend upon so many uncertain enquiries is offered to be proved by so long so tedious a method hath in it so many intrigues and Labyrinths of Question and is like a long line so impossible to be perfectly streight and to have no declination in it when it is held by such a hand as yours that unless it be by material enquiries into the Articles of the Religion you can never hope to have just grounds of confidence In the mean time you can consider this if the Roman Church were the Catholick that is so as to exclude all that are not of her communion then the Greek Churches had as good turn Turks as remain damned Christians and all that are in the communion of all the other Patriarchal Churches in Christendom must also perish like Heathens which thing before any man can believe he must have put off all reason and all modesty and all charity And who can with any probability think that the Communion of Saints in the Creed is nothing but the Communion of Roman Subjects and the Article of the Catholick Church was made up to dispark the inclosures of Jerusalem but to turn them into the pale of Rome and the Church is as limited as ever it was save only that the Synagogue is translated to Rome which I think you will easily believe was a Proposition the Apostles understood not But though it be hard to trust to it it is also so hard to prove it that you shall never be able to understand the measures of that question and therefore your Salvation can never depend upon it For no good or wise person can believe that God hath tied our Salvation to impossible measures or bound us to an Article that is not by us cognoscible or intends to have us conducted by that which we cannot understand And when you shall know that Learned men even of the Roman party are not agreed concerning the Catholick Church that is infallibly to guide you Some saying that it is the Virtual Church that is the Pope Some that it is the Representative Church that is a Council Some that it is the Pope and the Council the Virtual Church and the Representative Church together Some that neither of these nor both together are infallible but only the essential Church or the diffusive Church is the Catholick from whom we must at no hand dissent you will quickly find your self in a wood and uncertain whether you have more than a word in exchange for your Soul when you are told you are in the Catholick Church But I will tell you what you may understand and see and feel something that your self can tell whether I say true or no concerning it You are now gone to a Church that protects it self by arts of subtilty and arms by violence and persecuting all that are not of their minds to a Church in which your are to be a Subject of the King so long as it pleases the Pope In which you may be absolved from your Vows made to God your Oaths to the King your Promises to Men your duty to your Parents in some cases A Church in which men pray to God and to Saints in the same Form of words in which they pray to God as you may see in the Offices of Saints and particularly of our Lady a Church in which men are taught by most of the principal Leaders to worship Images with the same worship with which they worship God and Christ or him or her whose Image it is and in which they usually picture
teaching us But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints in certain extraordinary Images or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary or make Vows to persons of whose state or place or capacities or condition we have no certain revelation We are sure we do well when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour but they who also worship what seems to be Bread are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled as it is in the question of the Real Presence as it is taught by the Church of England So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution and taking half instead of all Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves Unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the Commandments in Faith in Hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supreme you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen rather weakly than maliciously and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life and in the Day of your Death and in the Day of Judgment If you will not yet I have freed mine own Soul and done an act of Duty and Charity which at least you are bound to take kindly if you will not entertain it obediently Now let me add this That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle and in that too which I intend them that is so as to be an Objection obliging you to return under the pain of folly or heresie or disobedience according to the subject matter And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration yet if it be desired I shall represent them to your eye so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings The first is Where was your Church before Luther Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture or right Reason or Universal Tradition you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us is eternally true and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors But if you still ask where it was before Luther I answer it was there where it was after even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and I know no warrant for any other Religion And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England I shall tell you it is unreasonable because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions till you made many things necessary to be professed which are not lawful to be believed For if we believe your superinduc'd follies we shall do unreasonably unconscionably and wickedly but the questions themselves are so useless abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us that it had been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church and multiplied the dangers of damnation and pretend new necessities and have introduc'd new Articles and affright the simple upon new pretensions and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles and invent new Sacramentals constituting Ceremonies of their own head and promise grace along with the use of them as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit and teach for doctrines the commandments of men and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition and have made a strange Body of Divinity therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams but our Faith was completed at first it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints and can be no more for ever So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions It was long before they were questions at all and when they were made questions they remained so a long time and when by their several pieces they were determined this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power and when God gave opportunity then the yoke was broken and this is the whole progress of this affair But if you will still insist upon it then let the matter be put into equal balances and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
faith of the Primitive Church And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Lukes story for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero's reign five or six years before the death of S. Paul Igitur Neronis primo Imperii anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it in stead of octavo Sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Bishoprick for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priests in Alexandria besides him and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters is not so soon to be contrived But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs Quod post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark * And Philo the Jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria called by the inhabitants Cultores and Cultrices The worshippers Addit autem adhuc his saith Eusebius quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua vel quae sit supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia a height above all imployments established at Alexandria and how soon that was is soon computed for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time and was Embassador to the Emperor Caius and survived S. Mark a little But S. Jerome will strike up this business A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri Aegypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant And again Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus The same is witnessed by S. Gregory Nicephorus and divers others Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts as innumerable multitudes of things more and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter nothing of S. James the son of Thaddaeus nor of Alpheus but the Martyrdom of one of them nothing of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas of Simon zelotes of S. Jude the Apostle scarce any of their names recorded yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records which all Christendom hitherto so far as we know hath acknowledged as authentick and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical being done in the Apostles times to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death as here at Alexandria first S. Mark then Anianus made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria for Bishop he was most certainly is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit gloriosè consummavit Martyrium S. Peter sent him into Aegypt to found a Church and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment and that could be no less than the ordinary power Apostolical SECT XVII S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome BUT in the Church of Rome the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and their successions during the times of the Apostles is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit Succedit autem ei Anacletus post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui vidit ipsos Apostolos contulit cum eis cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum traditionem ante oculos haberet So S. Irenaeus Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus Linus vero Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles as of Tertullian Optatus S. Augustin and S. Hierom. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish and be tedious in a thing so evident and known SECT XVIII S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others S. JOHN ordained S. Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant So Tertullian The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarp was placed there by Saint John as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo c. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome and Eusebius Quoniam autem valde longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare to use S. Irenaeus his expression It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands as Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens Caius at Thessalonica Archippus at Colosse Onesimus at Ephesus Anâ—ipas at Pergamus Epaphroditus at Philippi Crescens among the Gaules Evodias at Antioch Sosipater at Iconium Erastus in Macedonia Trophimus at Arles Jason at Tarsus Silas at Corinth Onesiphorus at Colophon Quartus at Berytus Paul the Proconsul at Narbona besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture as these fore-cited are so many as Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their Acts and Ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first Ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick and their adversaries who could not do so to be Heretical This also is very evident and of great consideration in the first Ages while their tradition was clear and evident and not so be-pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
The instances of this are just so many as there are Councils S. Athanasius reprehending Constantius the Arian for interposing in the Conciliary determinations of faith Si judicium Episcoporum est saith he quid cum eo commune habet Imperator It is a judgment to be passed by Bishops meaning the determination of the article and not proper for the Emperor And when Hosius of Corduba reproved him for sitting President in a Council Quis enim videns eum in decernendo Principem se facere Episcoporum non meritò dicat illum eam ipsam abhominationem desolationis He that sits President makes himself chief of the Bishops c. intimating Bishops only to preside in Councils and to make decision And therefore conventus Episcoporum and Concilium Episcoporum are the words for General and Provincial Councils Bis in anno Episcoporum Concilia celebrentur said the 38 Canon of the Apostles and Congregatio Episcopalis the Council of Sardis is called by Theodoret. And when the Question was started in the time of Pope Victor about the celebration of Easter Ob quam causam saith Eusebius conventus Episcoporum Concilia per singulas quasque provincias convocantur Where by the way it is observable that at first even provincial Synods were only held by Bishops and Presbyters had no interest in the decision however we have of late sate so near Bishops in Provincial assemblies that we have sate upon the Bishops skirts But my Lords the Bishops have a concerning interest in this To them I leave it And because the four general Councils are the Precedents and chief of all the rest I shall only instance in them for this particular 1. The title of the Nicene Council runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Canons of the 318 Fathers met in Nice These Fathers were all that gave suffrage to the Canons for if they had been more the title could not have appropriated the Sanction to 318. And that there were no more S. Ambrose gives testimony in that he makes it to be a mystical number Nam Abraham trecentos decem octo duxit ad bellum De Conciliis id potissimùm sequor quod trecenti decem octo Sacerdotes velut trophaeum extulerunt ut mihi videatur hoc esse Divinum quod eodem numero in Conciliis fidei habemus oraculum quo in historiâ pietatis exemplum Well! 318 was the Number of the Judges the Nicene Fathers and they were all Bishops for so is the title of the subscriptions Subscripserunt trecenti decem octo Episcopi qui in eodem Concilio convenerunt 13 whereof were Chorespiscopi but not one Presbyter save only that Vitus and Vincentius subscribed as Legates of the Bishop of Rome but not by their own authority 2. The great Council of Constantinople was celebrated by 150 Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That 's the title of the Canons The Canons of 150 holy Fathers who met in G. P. and that these were all Bishops appears by the title of S. Gregory Nazianzen's oration in the beginning of the Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The oration of S. Gregory Nazianzen in the presence of 150 Bishops And of this Council it was that Socrates speaking Imperator saith he nullâ morâ interpositâ Concilium Episcoporum convocat Here indeed some few Bishops appeared by Proxy as Montanus Bishop of Claudiopolis by Paulus a Presbyter and Atarbius Bishop of Pontus by Cylus a Reader and about some four or five more * This only amongst the subscriptions I find Tyrannus Auxanon Helladius and Elpidius calling themselves Presbyters But their modesty hinders not the truth of the former testimonies They were Bishops saith the title of the Council and the Oration and the Canons and Socrates And lest there be scruple concerning Auxanon Presbyter Apameae because before Johannes Apameensis subscribed which seems to intimate that one of them was the Bishop and the other but a Presbyter indeed without a subterfuge of modesty the titles distinguish them For John was Bishop in the Province of Caelo Syria and Auxanon of Apamâ—a in Pisidia 3. The third was the Council of Ephesus Episcoporum plurium quà m ducentorum as it is often said in the acts of the Council of above 200 Bishops but no Presbyters for Cum Episcopi supra ducentos extiterint qui Nestorium deposuerunt horum subscriptionibus contenti fuimus We were content with the subscription of the 200 and odd Bishops saith the Council and Theodosius junior in his Epistle to the Synod Illicitum est saith he eum qui non sit in ordine sanctissimorum Episcoporum Ecclesiasticis immisceri tractatibus It is unlawful for any but them who are in the order of the most holy Bishops to be interess'd in Ecclesiastical assemblies 4. The last of the four great conventions of Christendom was sexcentorum triginta Episcoporum of 630 Bishops at Chalcedon in Bithynia But in all these assemblies no meer Presbyters gave suffrage except by legation from his Bishop and delegation of authority And therefore when in this Council some Laicks and some Monks and some Clergie-men not Bishops would interest themselves Pulcheria the Empress sent letters to Consularius to repel them by force Si praeter nostram evocationem aut permissionem suorum Episcoporum ibidem commorantur Who come without command of the Empress or the Bishops permission Where it is observable that the Bishops might bring Clerks with them to assist to dispute and to be present in all the action And thus they often did suffer Abbots or Archimandrites to be there and to subscribe too but that was praeter regulam and by indulgence only and condescension For when Martinus the Abbot was requested to subscribe he answered Non suum esse sed Episcoporum tantum subscribere It belonged only to Bishops to subscribe to Councils For this reason the Fathers themselves often called out in the Council Mitte foras superfluos Concilium Episcoporum est But I need not more particular arguments for till the Council of Basil the Church never admitted Presbyters as in their own right to voice in Councils and that Council we know savour'd too much of the Schismatick but before this Council no example no president of subscriptions of the Presbyters either to Oecumenical or Provincial Synods Indeed to a Diocesan Synod viz. that of Auxerre in Burgundy I find 32 Presbyters subscribing This Synod was neither Oecumenical nor Provincial but meerly the Convocation of a Diocess For here was but one Bishop and some few Abbots and 32 Presbyters It was indeed no more than a visitation or the calling of a Chapter for of this we receive intimation in the seventh Canon of that assembly Vt in medio Maio omnes Presbyteri ad Synodum venirent that was their summons Et in Novembri omnes Abbates ad Concilium so that here is intimation of a yearly Synod besides the first convention the greatest of