at Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the word of God sent to them Peter and John Can S. Peter go upon commission from the Apostles who gives the Apostles the commission they have Those that preached circumcision at Antiochia had no commission for it from the Church at Jerusalem Act. XV. 24. It must have been from S. Peter if that Church had acted then by virtue of his Commission But he was present and is signified as one of them that writ these words Let any man stand upon it that will that the false Apostles whom S Paul writes against 2 Cor. XI 13. pretended commission from S. Peter because of the opposition which they made between him on the one side and S Paul and Apollos on the other side 2 Cor. I. 12. Though I showed you beter reason afore that they pretended that commission from the Apostles which they disowned Acts XV. 24. It is easie for me to say that they pretended not S. Peters name as Soveraign over the Apostles but as founder of the Church of Corinth as well as S. Paul which Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius witnesseth Whereas when S. Paul pleads his Commission of Apostle from God and not from man Gal. I. 1. II. 6 9. and that in express opposition to S. James and S. John as well as to S. Peter it is manifest that they as well as S. Peter might have pretended to give it had he not been an Apostle but being an Apostle none but our Lord Christ And therefore when he resists S. Peter and reproves him to the face Gal. II. 11-14 understand this resistance and reproof as you please whither true or colourable had S. Peter been Monarch it had not been for an Apostle to colour his proceeding with a pretense inferring rebellion against his Soveraign Wherefore there may be lesand greater Apostles foâ— personâ—ble qualiâ—ies And S. Paul that is the least of them for his calling may be inferiour to none for his labours 1 Cor. XV. 9. 10. 2 Cor. XI 5. XII 11. 12. Nay S. Peter may have a standing pre-eminence of Head of the Bench to avoid confusion and to create order in their proceedings and yet their commission be immediate from our Lord and the mater of it and the power it creates the same for substance Having thus destroyed this ground upon which some people claim a Monarchy over the Church for the Pope by the scriptures without seeking for other exceptions to the pretense that may be made to the same purpose from the Tradition of the Catholick Church I proceed to setle the ground of that eminence and superiority which I conceive some Churches have over others for the unity of the whole Church Because of necessity the reason and ground upon which it stands must be the measure of it how farre it extends And the positive truth thereof will be negatively an exception to that Soveraignty which the Bishop of Rome by the succession of S. Peter pretendeth I say then that the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord Christ intending to convert the World to the Faith and to establish one Church of all that should be converted to it did agree and appoint that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chief Churches and that the Churches of inferiour Cities should depend upon them and have recourse to them in all things that might concern the common Christianity whither in the Rule of Faith or in the Unity of the Church in the offices of Gods service reserving unto themselves the ordering of those things which being of lesse moment might concern their own peace and good order rather then the interesse of other Churches I do not pretend to produce any act under the Apostles hands in which this conclusion is signed but to proceed upon the principles premised to argue and to inferre that those things which I shall evidently show have passed in the Church could not otherwise have come to pass unlesse we could suppose that a constant order which hath wholly taken place in the Church ever since the Apostles could have prevailed over those infinite wayes which confusion might have imagined had there been no ground from whence this certain order should rise And here I do profess that if any man will needs be contentious and say that this order came not in by the appointment of the Apostles themselves because during their time the probability of converting the Romane Empire and other Nations to Christianity could not appear and that it doth not appear by any circumstance of Scripture that the Spirit of Prophesy was given them to such purposes I will rather grant all this then contend about those terms which I need not insist upon though I do firmly believe that before all the Apostles left the World the conversion of the Gentiles was their design and the design of their successors But I will provide on the other side that whither the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors in whom the power of governing the whole Church was as fully to all purposes as in the Apostles themselves for though they might be assisted by the Gift of Prophesy in those occasions as it is probable they were at the Council of Jerusalem Acts XV. yet must their authority proceed whether so assisted or not the obligation upon the Church must needs remain the same to cherish and maintain that Order which once might have been established by them the Unity of the Church which is the end of it not being otherwise attainable And upon this ground I maintain that the Churches of Rome Alexandria and Antiochia had from the beginning a priviledge of eminence above other Churches For Rome being the seat of the Empire Alexandria and Antiochia which had formerly been the Seates of the Successors of Ptolomee in Aegypt and Seleucus in Asia having from their first coming under the Romane Empire had their peâ—uliar Governours it is no marvail if the Churches founded in them held their peculiar priviledges and eminences over the Churches of their resorts from the very founding of Christianity in these mother Cities and the propagating of it from thence into inferiour Cities and thence over the confines And this is the onely reason that can be rendred why the Church of Jerusalem which in respect of the first abode of the Apostles and the propagation of Christianity is justly counted the mother of all Churches and which gave law to that of Antiochia and the rest that were concerned in the same dispute with it and during the Apostles time received oblations of maintenance from the Churches of the Gentiles became afterwards inferiour to these and in particular to that of Antiochia But he that shall compare these Cities and the greatnesse of them and eminence over their respective Territories with that of Rome not onely over the rest of the Empire but over those Cities with find it consequent to the ground of this design not that the Church of Rome should be
given generally to every Church For whereas our Lord elsewhere gives unto S. Peter this power of binding and loosing there is no doubt that in Peter bearing the form of the Church he gave it to all the Apostles Proceeding to allege S. Jerome and S. Augustine to the same purpose And upon the words of our Lord Feed my sheep Quod Petro dictum est omnibus Christi discipulis dictum est Hoc namque fuerunt caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus fuit pastores sunt omnes grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis tunc unanimi consensu pascebatur deincepâ— a successoribus eorum communi curâ pascitur That which is said to Peter is said to all Christs Disciples For what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles They are all shepherds but the flock appears to be but one which as then it was fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent so is it since fed by their successors with common care These Fathers then when they give this for the reason why our Lord gives Peter onely the Keys of the Church with the charge of feeding his flock that hee bore the person and form of the Church suppose the Church to be a body compacted of all Churches ruled by the same form of Government for the preserving of unity in the whole as the colledge of the Apostles consisteth of so many persons indowed all with one and the same power for whom one answers to signifie the unity of the whole Whereby it appeareth first negatively That the Church did uot understand any Soveraign Power to be committed to S. Peter by these words Then positively that our Lord speaking to him alone signifies there by the course which he hath established for preserving unity in the Church To wit that all Churches being governed in the same form the greater go before the lesse in ordering maters of common concernment S. Cypriane from whom all the rest have this doctrine hath cleared the intent of it when he thus writeth Epist ad Jubai LXXII Manifestum est autem ubi per quos remissa peccatorum datur quae in baptismo scilicet daâ—ur Nam Petro primum dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in caelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hoc cum dixisset inspiravit aâ—t illis Accipite spiritum sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ— praepositis in Evangelicâ lege dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sinnes is given when it is given in Baptism For our Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and in whom and from whom he instituted and declared the original of unity in it this power that it should be loosed in heaven whatsoever he had loosed on earth And after his resurrection also speaking to the Apostles he saith As my Father sent me so send I you And having said this he breathed on them saying If ye remit any mans sinnes they shall be remitted him if ye retain any mans they shall be retained Whence we understand that it is not lawful for any but those that are set over the Church and grounded in the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sinnes Because Peter received the Keys therefore all and every Church that is those that are over it and none else can give remission of sinnes by admitting to Baptism Shall we think the consequence extravagant having so clear a ground for it to wit the unity of the whole Church setled upon two ingredients the same form in all Churches but with dependence of the lesse upon the greater Churches If any man say all this is disputed by Cypriane to prove that Baptism given by Hereticks is void wherein he hath been disowned by the Church And that therefore the reasons are not well grounded from whence it is inferred The answer is easie because he inferrs upon them that which though true they do not inforce That a man cannot lawfully baptize is not so much as that if he do baptize his Baptism is void S. Cypriane took both for one and therefore his reason is good though it conclude not his purpose Why not void being unlawful I refer my self to what S. Augustine since hath disputed and the Church decreed and practised And here you have one ground for that distinction between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing one with another the Bishops and Priests of several Churches according to the original constitution of the Church I allow S. Hierome to say that wheresoever there is a Bishop whither at Rome or at Eugubium an obscure City near Rome he is of the same worth as of the same Priesthood Epist LXXXV For as to the inward Court of the conscience the office that is Ministred by the Bishop or Priest of a lesse Church is no lesse effectual then by one of a greater Church But as to the outward Court of the Church supposing all Churches governed in the same form but the Churches of lesse Cities subordinate to the Churches of greater Cities by the appointment of the Apostles the act of the lesse Church of the Bishop or a Priest of it cannot be of that consequence to the whole as the act of the greater Church And so though the Bishop or the Priest of a litle Church be of the same Order with the Bishop or Priest of a great Church yet the authority of the one extendeth without comparison further then the authority of the other can do And you may perhaps dispute whether this authority produce any such as Jurisdiction or not but whether there be ground hereupon to distinguish between the Order which is the same in both and the authority which it createth in which there is so great difference you cannot dispute Certainly the office of a Deacon in a greater Church may be of more consequence to the whole then many Bishops can bring to pass As the assistance of Athanasius in the office of a Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea was of more consequence to the obtaining of the decree of the Council then the votes of many Bishops there CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The businesse of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine AMongst the proceedings of the Church I will first alledge that of the Church of Rome
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
found that our Lord was born about the feast of Tabernacles with the Jews in September being a figure of the Tabernacle of his flesh Though this was ingeniously argued yet had it proved true it had been an unsufferable levit in any man to inferre the dissolution of order in the service of God and the peace of his Church upon the supposition of it For who ever heard the Church declare that the celebration of our Lords birth on the XXV of December proceeds upon supposition that he was indeed born that day So that supposing it uncertain on what day he was born it was to be celebrated on no day What reason what sense can justisie such a consequence when the circumstance of time is not considerable towards the end of Festivals which is the service of God but onely as an occasion for the Church to take of assembling Christians Not as among the Jews whose solemnities having dependence upon the Land of promise and the temporal promises thereof if they kept not the due season of the year were indeed abominable Those therefore that would perswade us that there is any fault in solemnizing the remembrance of Christs birth ought first to shew us if they mean any good to our common Christianity that the birth of Christ is not a â—it occasion of assembling Christian people to serve God with the offices of Christianity Which if they should go about they might well blush to remember that having been so zealous to cry up Market days for fit occasions of Gods service wherein there is so much appearance of worldly profit by increase of Trade and commerce of people they should have so litle regard to that consideration upon which all mater of all Christian assemblies depends as not to think it a just occasion of assembling Gods people It is true indeed there hath been some difference in the observation of the Church about the day the VI of January having heretofore been observed in some parts of the Church for the day of Christs birth as well as of his baptism Which probably came from the Gospel saying that our Lord was baptized at thirty years of age Luk. III. 23. and giving thereby occasion to place both upon one and the same day This you shall find in Cassiane Collat. X. 1. And where Ammianus XXI relateth of Juliane that not willing as yet to declare himself Apostate he came forth to Church die Epiphaniorum upon the Epiphany Zonaras reporting the same saith upon the Nativity Not because it was so held and observed in the West but because Zonaras a Greek relates it as the East accounted it And this was the ground for the XII days when the XXV of December prevailed over the East which was lately come to pass in S. Chrysostomes time as it is well known that Scaliger hath observed But what will half-sighted ignorance plead for the great boldnesse which it taketh of innovating in the orders of the Church upon a supposition always conjectural and we acknowledged false by all Chronologers For could ever any man assure but upon probable conjecture that Judas Maccabaeus did begin the service of the Temple rather with the first order then with that at which it left off three years afore which every man remembred But time having since discovered that it was not the true year of Christs birth upon which Scaliger thought he was born so farr is this ignorance from any plea for it self that it may well be a warning to the like boldness to be beter informed before they undertake to reform For now they are to advise how to answer Bucherius the Jesuit who by counting the courses of the Priests from the dedication under fudas to the true year of Christs birth hath found the time of it to fall near the XXV of December from the annunciation of Zachary being of the course of Abia. And the L. Primates late Annals maintain the XXV of December for the true day of our Lords birth delivered by S. Peter to the Church of Rome upon the credit of the records of the Taxes then extant at Rome and alleged by Tertullian Though the same Tradition was not preserved in the Eastern Churches in so much that till S. Chrysostomes time all the Churches agreed not in the day upon which they solemnized it Now if there be so great reason why the Lent Fast should go before the Feast of Easter to prepare all the world to renew the purpose and profession of their Christianity by the exercise of devotion and Penance as well as to prepare those that stood for their Christianity to their Baptism at Easter which was ror many ages the custome of the Church how can it be denied that the solemnity of Advent before the celebration of Christs birth is an order fit to provide the like means and opportunities and advantages for the advancement and improvement of Christianity by the like exercises Nor shall I need further to dispute for the observing of Wednesdays and Fridayes or Saturdays with those that have admitted the premises that the Church may and ought to set asâ—de certain days for the service of God in fasting and Penance for our own unworthinesse as well as in feasâ—ing and rejoycing for Gods goodnesse For â—â—nce our transgressions have their recourse as sure as the remembrance of our Lords rising again is it for the advantage or for the disadvantage of Christianity that the Friday should be observed for the service of God by humbling out selves in the sight of our â—â—nnes as the Lords day for his service by setting forth his praises in the sight of his mercies And seeing the Jews from before our Lords time observed Mundays and Thursdays for their private and publick huâ—â—liations and the moâ—â— solemn days of assembling in their Synagogues as I have showed there And that the Christians have always observed Wednesdays and Frydays to the like purposes It seems to remain certain thereby that the translation of the days is the act of the Apostles seeking those days which were alike distant from the Lords day as those which the Jews observed were from the Sabbath Because no reason will allow that after the time of the Apostles the breach between the Church and the Synagogue being completed Christians should imitate the orders of the Jews and all agree in it It must therefore be concluded that the observation of Wednesdays and Thursdays is from the Apostles Though the fasting upon Saturday which the West observeth come from the custome of the Church of Rome which the rest of the West hath conformed it self to in succeeding ages Of the observation of the Saints memories and the days on which the Martyrs suffered which the ancient Church called their birth-days to wit into a beter world I shall not say much for the reason alleged before Onely this that those who think not so eminent accidents sufficient occasions for the Church to meet upon for the service of God in the
to you to be the commandements of the Lord. Which is to say that all even Prophets are to be subject to the Apostles by consequence to none but them who have received commission from the Apostles For howshal any order he setled to maintain unity in the communion of Gods service upon any other principle but that upon which the Coirnthians are obliged to rest in this which therefore being setled by order from the apostles is from thencforth trusted with the teaching of Gods people and no man further then he is trusted by the same Neither is it any marvaile that in the Church of England after orders confirmed after possession of a Church license of preaching is granted by the Bishop Because there are divers offices as well concerning the cure of soules as the service of God in the Church to which men may be appointed by the Lawes of the Church who are not to be trusted with Preaching even to their own people but upon expresse submission to the Bishops correction in behalfe of his Church For if sufficient power be reserved the Bishop to provide for his flock it will be in him to provide instruction for them by such persons as he shall think fit to trust and if it be not in him so to doe the fault is in the Lawes abridging his power of making a cheerfull account to God for his people Howsoever from hence it may appeare how ridiculous a thing it is to judge of the instruction a Bishop affords his flock by the sermons himselfe preaches unlesse it could be thought that his lungs and sides could reach all his people For his fidelity in trusting such persons as are to be trusted with teaching his people and his care in watching over the performance of their trust extendeth alike to all and maketh his Clergy his instruments in feeding his flock And whatsoever may have decayed in this Order through the Church of England the restoring thereof by wholsom Lawes aswell Ecclesiastcall as Civill had been and is the Reformation of Christianity not the rooting up of the very foundations of the Church out of zeale to exirtpate the order of Bishops And since the licentiousnesse of preaching what any man can make of the Bible hath made so faire a way for so few years to the rooting up of Christianity with the Church what will there be to secure the consciences of Gods people that they may safely go to Church and trust their soules with the means of salvation that are there to be found but the restoring of Gods Church That is to say of that authority which he by his Apostles hath provided for the determining of all things concerning his publike service supposing the profession of that faith which the whole Church hath maintained from the beginning as received from our Lord by his Apostles Which if it be true the same reason will oblige all men to provide the meanes of salvation for themselves that is to follow them of their owne choice without direction or constraint of the Lawes in the meane time I doe not conceive it becomes me to say what ought to be as I conceive it behoves me to say what ought not to be This I will say having proved that the prayses of God and Prayers much more the Eucharist are principal in comparison of preaching which is subordinate That the assemblies of Gods people ought to be more frequent for them then they can be for heareing of Sermons as I have showed by the premises S. Paul commands to pray continually and David saith the praises of God shall be alwaies in his mouth not expressing the assemblies of Gods people but inferring that which I have said of the dayly service of God in publick in my book of the assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII I maintain there is no ground no precept no example no practise of dayly preaching like this for daily prayers which if it be true the confining of assemblies to sermons is to Gods disservice It will be said that S. Paul 1 Tim. IV. 2. Thus exhorteth Preach the word be instant in season out of season examine rebuke exhort with all long suffering and meeknesse And it is as easily answered that here is nothing to the purpose Instance in the preaching of the word refers to unbelievers To induce them to be Christians though out of season is alwaies seasonable Long-suffering and meeknesse in examining rebuking exhorting of Christians privately may be publikely if not according to order must needs be unseasonable Men seeme to imagin that there were Pulpits and Churches and audiences ready to heare the Apostles preach before men were Christians When they were they shall find that meanes of meeting was provided by Christian people according to their duty the order appointed by them and their successors That they sate upon their chaires in teaching challenging the authority by which they taught the people sometimes standing somtimes allowed to sit downe None but Deacons preached standing when the order and discipline of the primitive Church was in force To deal with those that were not Christians S. Paul must goe out into the Piazza or to the Exchange to Gentiles to do that which they did in the Synagogue or in the temple to the Jewes Acts XVII 7 11. 46. In preaching to Jewes it was their advantage to observe the orders of the Synogogue And yet he that shall peruse that which I have said in the book aforenamed shall never say that those assemblies were principally for preaching which the Apostles made use of to preach to the Synagogue When they had ordered the assemblies of Churches what have you in their writings to recommed frequent preaching but S. Pauls order in the use of these miraculous graces given the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV unlesse it be drawne into consequence that S. Paul prevailed till midnight Acts. XX. 7. as if the act of an Apostle being to depart were a precedent to the order of the Church Buâ— I have showed you in the foresaid book Chap X. that the Eucharists have a share in the use of the said graces and the worke of the said assemblies as also Hymnes of Gods praises And in â— Cor. XI you read very much of the Eucharist as also of praying Prophesying that is praysing God by Psalmes as I have said there Chap. V. without any mention of Preaching If the Doctrine of the Apostles be joyned with breaking of bread and Prayer Acts XI 42. If the Elders that laboure in the word and doctrine be preferred by S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 17. You have a solemn instruction concerning prayers and the Eucharist 1. Tim. II. 1 2. as also exhortations to frequent it Ebr. XIII 15. without any mention of preaching In fine there is nothing in the Scripture to question the ground which I setled afore As for the practice of the Church I will goe no further then Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles Cap. LIII neither commending nor blaming those that
when wee see persons authorized in behalf of their particular Churches do an act which shall oblige those respective Churches For by the same reason persons authorized on behalf of all Churches shall be able to do an act that shall oblige all Churches Which is all that I claim when I maintain that by Gods Law all Churches are to make one Church When Matthias was Ordained an Apostle in stead of Judas I demand why that Assembly of Apostles and Disciples at which this was done should not be counted a General Council having showed that this Church of Jerusalem was then the whole Church and the creating of an Apostle whom all were to acknowledge in that quality for the future being an act concerning the Whole I will not say that the act of creating the seven Acts VI. concerned the whole Church being content that it remaine in question whether the intent of it were such or not But in as much as those that do not allow that they intended to create an Order of Deacons which all Churches were to make use of afterwards do not question that if they did intend it the whole Church must needs stand obliged by it I am not afraid to reckon this Assembly also in the rank of General Councils As for that of Acts XV. it appeareth sufficiently that those who founded the Church of Antiochia had their first commission from the Apostles not onely by the first preaching of the Gospel there and the sending of Barnabas Acts XI 19-26 but chiefly in that those which taught the necessity of observing Moses Law are disowned as having no commission so to teach Acts XV. 24. For as for S. Paul who challengeth an immediate commission from our Lord Gal. I. 1. it is easily granted because hee was made an Apostle Yet in that hee allegeth the verifying of it to S. Peter and S. James and the Churches of Judaea who having never seen his face glorified God for him Gal. I. 18-24 in that hee is brought by Barnabas who acted by commission from the Apostles to Antiochia and upon this beginning was sent by the Holy Ghost that is by Prophesie to do the office of an Apostle with Barnabas Acts XII 1 2 3. in that hee is owned by the Apostles afterwards Acts XV. 12. Gal. II. 1 7-10 which makes it more than probable that both these Texts speak of one and the same time of S. Pauls coming to Jerusalem in these regards I say it appeares sufficiently that the Church was to own him for an Apostle upon the owning his immediate calling from heaven by the rest of the Apostles Wherefore when wee see those that were trusted on behalf of the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which had been founded by those that were sent by the Holy Ghost from thence resort to the Apostles and Church at Jerusalem for an end of the difference in debate well may I with those that have gone afore mee reckon this meeting among the General Councils the cause of it concerning the whole no part concerned that it obliged not I will not say so much of the meeting of S. Paul with S. James Acts XXI 18. though the Elders there mentioned are thought to be those that had the chief authority in the neighbouring Churches as well as in that of Jerusalem And though S. Paul by this time was become rhe Head of many more Churches of his own foundation than afore Because of the dispersion of the rest of the Apostles and the founding of other Churches by this time which could not be tied by the result of this meeting further than the mater of it was inforced by the decree formerly made of which among the Apostles there ought no doubt to be made Let no man expect that I inferre upon these premises that the Church is bound by a positive Law of God to call Councils and to decide all emergencies by the vote of them much lesse that it is not able to do this otherwise I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a privilege of holding visible Assemblies for the common service of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needes maintain by consequence that the Church hath power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common service of God and the unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it but especially that profession which it supposeth But I intend not therefore to tye the Church to inflame persecution by holding such Assemblies as may give occasion of sinister suspicions to secular Powers that protect not Christianity when the effect of such Assemblies is to be obtained without assembling For whosoever they be that ought to be authorized in behalf of particular Churches to constitute a Council they can have no other authority than their respective Churches do challenge It cannot be imagined that being present in one place together and seeing one anothers faces can purchase them that authority which they cannot have at home to conclude the whole by the consent of the Council The presence of Representatives affords infinite opportunities of better information one from another by debate one with another which distance of place allowes not otherwise But yet in maters concerning the state of the Whole or any great part of it means of information for the maintenance of that confederacy wherein I maintain the Society of the Church to stand is to be had by daily intercourse intelligence and correspondence between Churches without those Assemblies of Representatives which wee call Councils A thing so visibly practised by the Catholick Church from the beginning that thereupon I conceive it may be called a standing Council in regard of the continual settling of troubles arising in some part and tending to question the peace of the whole by the consent of other Churches concerned had and obtained by means of this mutual intelligence and correspondence The holding of Councils is a way of farre greater dispatch but the expresse consent of Churches obtained upon the place is a more certain foundation of peace in regard of the many questions that may arise as well in the discharge of that trust which Representatives are charged with as in the respect allowed their votes by the Council As it may easily appear by the difficulties that have risen about executing the decrees of Councils And therefore the power of them is meerly derivâ—tive from their respective Churches tending to supply those difficulties of bringing the whole to agreement which distance of place createth That therefore which I allege here is this That the succession of Pastors alleged by Irenaeus and Tertullian to convince the Hereticks of their time by S. Augustine and Optatus to convince the Donatists to be Schismaticks proceed wholey upon supposition of daily intercourse and correspondence between Churches as of force to conclude particular Churches by consent of the whole Which is the true reason of
Church been in possession and practice at that time the Bishop of Rome had been a mad man to think that refusing it would be the means to reduce those of Asia to his judgment and practice If this possession and practice had no ground of right is it possible that none of either party should discover the sandy foundation of the dispute and perswade the parties which were so much in love with their own way on both sides to give no heed to other Churches the Communion of the Church having no ground and therefore being of no consequence What meant Irenaeus so to trouble himself to perswade Victor to hold communion with those of Asia though not condescending to keep Easter by the same Rule but that hee saw if the Church of Rome should break with the Churches of Asia that hee must break either with the one or the other of them who desired to hold communion with both Were the Disciples of the Apostles or at least of their Disciples cousened into a humane Tradition of the Unity of the Catholick and Apostolick Church when hee so earnestly labored that holding with the Church of Rome hee might not be constrained to forbear the intercourse which for the advancement of Christianity hee held with the Churches of Asia But S. Cyprians time affordes divers passages of great consequence The Schisme of the Novatians in the first place It is a thing manifest by Eusebius his Histories VI. 44 46. VII 4 5. that the Church of Antiochia together with the Churches of Pontus which then seem to have either resorted to Antiochia or in consideration of neighborhood to have held great correspondence with that Church and Cilicia made very great difficulty in admitting the election of Cornelius and condemning the Novatians for refusing to receive into communion those who in time of persecution had sacrificed to Idols and so renounced the Christian Faith In time by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria moved it seems with the consent of the rest of the Church they were also induced to disclaime the Novatians and to concurr to restore the Unity of the Church which for the time had remained in suspense And it is a thing very much to be observed which the Council at Antiochia in Encoeniis Dominicae aureae pleads to the Church of Rome in the dispute they had with Pope Julius about admitting the Acts of it in Sozomenus III. 8. and Socrates II. 5. They had taken upon them to make a new provision in that which the great Council at Nicaea had taken order in afore Which was in effect to make void the acts of that Council The Pope I suppose had reason to except that this could not be done without his consent including in it the consent of the Churches which adheered to him unlesse wee imagine that the Synod of Antiochia being but a part of those who had decreed at the Council of Nicaea had power to dissolve the acts of the whole What is it then toat this Synod allege for themselves Even this That having preserved or restored the Unity of the Church of Rome by disclaiming the Novatians they expected the like compliance from them in the present businesse Whereby it appeareth that the consent of the whole Church did make and was to make good the acts of part of it though not assembled with them in Council no lesse than if they were And indeed what made the second general Council of Constantinople under Theodosius to be general none having appeared at it for the Western Churches but the consent of Damasus and his Synod ex postfacto the rest of the West adheering to the same Which if it be so I do not think I need any other evidence that from S. Cyprians time all Christians did believe that they are bound to maintain themselves in communion with the Church when they believe that the consent thereof is able to do such acts as these I cannot here omit the words of Dionysius of Alexandria out of a leter to Novatianus recorded by Eusebius Eccl. Hist VII 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you were carried away against your will as you say you may show that by returning with your will For you should have indured any thing rather than smite asunder the Church of God And to suffer martyrdome rather than divide the Church had been no lesse glory than rather than commit Idolatry but greater in my judgmene For there a man suffers martyrdome for his own soul alone but here for the whole Church And now if you can perswade or constraine the brethren to return to concord your fall will not be so great as that exploit But if they will not be ruled and you cannot by all means save your own soul It is easie to observe that the same Churches which had made so much difficulty in disclaiming the Novatians were they who joyned with S. Cyprian in standing upon the rebaptizing of those that had been baptized by Hereticks As appeares not only by Firmilianus his Epistle to S. Cyprian but also by Dionysius of Alexandria de bapt III. alleged by Euscbius VII 7. even before S. Cyprian Whereby wee see how much Eusebius contradicts himself when hee sayes VII 3. that S. Cyprian was the first that called in question the Tradition received in that case In this businesse the XIX Canon of the Council of Nicaea makes it evident that neither S. Cyprians party nor their adversaries altogether prevailed For it is there inacted That those who had been baptized by the Samosatenians should be baptized again And must not the same needs hold much more of the Gnosticks and of almost all the rest of those Heresies which S. Cyprian nameth in his LXX Epistle Besides it is manifest by the second Council at Arles can XVII that of Laodicea can VII VIII Gennadius de dogm Eccl. cap. LII and others that the practice of the Churches after this dispute was ended was not every where the same And which is most remarkable Not onely the great Council at Arles Can. VIII makes a Rule for the Africane Churches which the first Council at Carthage followeth to the like purpose with that of the Council of Nicaea But also Optatus lib. I. demonstrates that hee rebaptized the Sabellians which the foresaid Rule alloweth not Whereby it appeareth that the extream opinions held by Steven of Rome that none were to be rebaptized and by S. Cyprian that all were moderated by the succeeding practice of the Churches though diverse in divers parts of the Church Now let mee ask by what means this moderation came to prevaile over that vehemence of contention which you may see the parties transported with in S. Cyprians Epistles What could it be but the conscience of that obligation which both parties owned to preserve the Unity of the Church and the respect of those other Churches that were not ingaged in the dispute as they were The businesse of Paulus Samosatenus is of the same time Was
originall practice of the Church whither in prescribing what is to be believed what is to be professed or what is to be done So manifest must it remain that nothing can be resolved by plurality of votes of Ecclesiasticall Writers as to the point of truth For then were the priviledge of infallibility in the votes of those Writers which themselves disclaim from the substance of what they write And it is to say that what had no such priviledge when it was written if it have more Authors survive that hold it shall be and must be held infallible Which consequences being ridiculous it followeth that for the tryal of truth within the bounds aforesaid recourse must be had to the means premised And the effect of those means every dayes experience witnesseth For the obligation which all men think they have firmly to hold that which by these means they have all concluded from the Scriptures is the consequence of these principles in expounding the same Which obligation though sometimes imaginary in regard that between contradictory reasons the consequence may be equally firm on both sides yet that it cannot be otherwise he that believes the truth of Christianity must needs imagine For true principles truly used necessarily produce nothing but true consequences Which if it be so why should any question be made that the Church may and sometimes ought to proceed in determining the truth of things questionable upon occasion of the Scriptures concerning the rule of Christian faith or which is all one that the exercise of this power by the Church produceth in those that are of the Church an obligation of submitting to the same Indeed here be two obligations which sometimes may contradict one another and therefore whatsoever the matter of them be the effects of them cannot be contraries The use of the means to determine the meaning of the Scriptures produceth an obligation of holding that which followeth from it which obligation no man can have or ought to imagine he hath before the due use of such meanes whither his estate in the Church oblige him to use them or not But the visible determination of the Church obliges all that are of the Church not to scandalize the unity thereof by professing contrary to the same And to both these obligations the same man may be subject as the matter may be to wit as one that hath resolved the question upon true principles not to believe the contrary and as one of the Church that believes the Church faileth in that for which he is bound not to break the unity thereof not to professe against what the Church determineth For I am bold to say again that there is no society no communion in the world whether Civill Ecclesiasticall Military or whatsoever it be that can subsist unlesse we grant that the Act of superiour Power obligeth sometimes when it is ill used In the mean time I say not that this holds alwaies and in matters of whatsoever concernment nor do take upon me generally to resolve this no more then what is the mater of the rule of Faith which he that believes may be saved he that positively believes it not all cannot It shall be enough for me if I may give an opinion whether that which we complain of be of value to disoblige us to our superiours or not As concerning what is questioned amongst us whither it be of the rule of Faith or not But this I shall say that to justifie the use of this power towards God requireth not onely a perswasion of the truth competent to the weight of the point in question in those that determine for the Church but also a probable judgement that the determination which they shall make will be the meanes to reduce contrary opinions to that sense which they see so great Authority profess and injoyn For without doubt there can be no such means to dissolve the unity of the Church as a precipitate and immature determination of something that is become questionable For effectually to proceed to exercise Ecclesiasticall Communion upon terms contrary to that which hath been received afore is actually to dissolve the unity of the Church The ingagement to make good that which men shall have once done being the most powerful Witcheraft and Ligature in the world to blind them from seeing that which all men see besides themselves or at least from confessing to see that which they cannot but see But if we speak of things which concern the communion of the Church in those offices which God is to be served with by Christians or that tend to maintain the same besides the meaning and truth of the Scriptures there remains a further question what is or ought to be law to the Church and oblige them that are of the Church seeing that whatsoever is in the Scripture obligeth not the Church for Law though obliged to beleeve it for truth the resolution whereof will require evidence of the reason for which every thing was done by the Apostles for as it holds or not so the constitution grounded upon it is to hold either alwaies or onely as it holds And this reason must be evidenced by the Authority of the Church admitting that reason into force whither by express act or by silent practice When the Israelites are commanded to eat the Passeover in haste with their loins girt and their staves in their hands there is appearance enough that the intent of it was onely concerning that Passeover which first they celebrated in Egypt not for an order alwaies to continue because then the case required haste and because then the Angell passed over their houses upon the door-posts whereof the blood was commandded to be sprinkled that by that marke he might passe over them to smite the Egyptians For though Philo would have the Passeover to be celebrated at home and not at Jerusalem though perhaps onely by those of the dispersions those that dwelt in the Land of promise being all tied to resort to Jerusalem yet all that acknowledge the Talmud think it not lawfull to celebrate it but at Jerusalem contenting themselves with the Supper and abatng the Lambe as one of those sacrifices which the Law forbiddeth every where but before the Ark. But had not the practice of the Nation and the Authority of the Elders trusted by the Law to determine such matters appeared in the businesse our Lord who according to his own doctrine was subject to their constitutions had not had a rule for his proceeding So in the infancy of Christianity it is no marvail if the Christians at Jerusalem entertained daily communion even at board also among themselves and that they gave their estates to the maintenance of it not by any law of communion of goods but as the common necessity required For what could make more towards the advancement of Christianity And when at Corinth and in other Churches the communion was in use though not so frequent nor giving up their
the maintenance of no necessity of grace because no originall sinne to deny Christ to be God incarnate that so the grace of God which the Covenant of Grace pretendeth may consist in Gods sending it not in Christs purchasing those helps whereby it is received and observed Which had Pelagius seen how consequent it is to his saying he who held the true faith of the holy Trinity would probably never have proceeded to deny the grace of Christ For would they have the Son of God born into the world and suffer death upon the Crosse on purpose to testifie the Gospel to be Gods message As if the Law had not been received before without it being recommended by such miraculous works of God that the Jews think there cannot be the like motives to believe that it is abrogated by Christianity Be their belief false sure we are Gods arme was not shortned to have no meanes in store to verify his Gospel but the death of his Sonne that he might rise againe to witnesse it For that it should be done to assure them who are perswaded that the Gospel is Gods message of the performance thereof on Gods part is rather a blasphemy then a reason In as much as he who doubts whether God will perform what he doubts not that he hath tied himself to by Covenant believes not God to be God And that we should be better assured of Christs protection because God hath freely bestowed upon him the honour and power of God then because he brought it in time into our flesh which he had from everlasting is a reason which no man can comprehend to be reasonable For whatsoever Grace comes to us by Christ the more originally and inseparably that it belongs to him the better it is assured upon us But one thing I demand of Pelagius aswell as of Socinus For as Socinus expresly grants the habituall grace of the holy Ghost to true Christians as necessary to inable them in performing what they undertake by their Christianity so I suppose Pelagius had the question been put to him would not have refused it I demand then whether a man in reason be more able to do the office of a Christian having undertaken it or to undertake it to wit sincerely while he is free from the ingagement of it That is whether a mans will be able inwardly to resolve without any help of Gods Spirit to do that which without the help of Gods Spirit he cannot performe I suppose the inward act according to all Divines and Philosophers amounts to one and the same in esteem with the outward and the beginning most difficult of all when the proposition of Christianity is most strange For a resolution upon mature debate of reason as in such a case and an engagement upon profession thereof is a meanes powerfull enough to carry a man to undergoe as much hardship as Christianity requires in a thing neither profitable nor pleasant If therefore to the performance of Christianity the assistance of Gods Spirit is requisite then because our nature is averse then much more to resolve us to it Whereby it appears that the same gift of the holy Ghost which being purchased by the obedience of Christ inabled the Apostles to do those things and say those words by which the world stands convict of the necessity of Christianity the same it is that effects the conviction of those who imbrace it and dwelling with them inables them to live in it according to the promise of God to his ancient people Esay LVIII 20. And as for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My Spirit which is upon thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor thy seeds mouth nor thy seeds seeds mouth from this time for evermore With the like brevity will I plead the Tradition of the Church concerning the Grace of Christ evidencing the same by three particulars The first whereof shall be of the Baptisme of Infants which as there can be no reason for uâ—lesse we believe originall sinne So I do challenge that it could not have come to be a Law to the Church had not the Faith of the Church from the Apostles time supposed originall sinne First negatively from the proceeding of Pelagius He first a Monk in Britaine and traveling thence along to Rome afterwards either by himself or by his agent Coelestius to Constantinople and Carthage through Asia the lesse and Affrick the East Egypt and Palestine and not finding in all this vast compasse any Church in which it had not been accustomed to baptize infants shall any man be now so madde as to imagine that this can be discovered to have been taken up upon misprision or abuse the custome of the Church having been otherwise afore It is time that the mindes of men that are possest of their senses should be imployed about things within the compasse of reason and not to perswade themselves that they see what cannot be because they cannot answer all arguments that may be made against that which is and is to be seen Could Pelagius have found any footing to deny it he was not such an Idiot as to suffer himself at every turn to be choked by the Catholicks objecting the baptisme of Infants every where received in the Church who might easily have put them to silence by saying it was not an originall Catholick practise of the whole Church but the mistake that of some men which had prevailed by faction in some times and parts of the Church as I pretend hereby to maintaine the Reformation against the present Church of Rome Since that ingenious and learned heretick nor any of his complices hath been found to use this plea all men that intend not to renounce their common sense will justify me if I challenge positively S. Austines Rule in a particular of such moment as this is That seeing it is manifest that it was a law to the whole Church that Infants should be Baptized and that there can be assigned no originall of it from any expresse act of the Church in Councill or otherwise it is therby evident that it comes from the order of the Apostles The reason is the unity of the Church the principle upon which all this proceeds whereby it appeares that it is utterly impossible that a point of such importance to Christianity could have been admitted over all the world where Christians were without any opposition or faction to overcome the same had it not from the beginning been acknowledged to proceed from the common principle from which all Ecclesiasticall Law is derived to wit from the authority of our Lords Apostles the founders of the Church It is not my intent hereby to say that the Apostles order was that all should be baptized Infants whose parents were Christians afore Against which I find reasons alledged in Tertullianes book de Baptismo which I cannot deny to be considerable But that no
state of things which he knew would be effectuall to perswade a man in the caâ—e which hâ— knew to be his By the like meanes God foreseeing the rebellion of Rezâ—n against his master Hadarâ—zer King of Zobah and the succâ—sse thereof in setting up a Kingdome at Damascus out of a conspiracy of Banditi might foresee that he must needs inherit his masters hostility with the Iâ—ralites As for Jeroboam God having appâ—â—nted Aâ—iah the Shâ—lonite to prophesie to him the apostasy oâ—â—en Tribes to his govâ—rnment knew that he might doe as David had done to expect the issuâ— of Gods pâ—rpoâ—e from his providence without any attempt uâ—â—n his Sâ—vâ—raâ—gne and he might doe as Hazael did afterwardes 2. Kings X. 14 15. To murther his master that he might reigne â—â— his stâ—ad as Eâ—â—sh had Prâ—phesiâ—d And was it not possible for God that knew Jeroboamâ— heart to know what he would doe when the Isralites had prâ—vately perswaded hâ—m to returne from banâ—shment upon Râ—hâ—â—oam answer to the petition which it seems he had procured Certainely he that believes the Scriptures can no more doubt that God designed the punnishment of Solomons Idolotries by these meanes then that he designed the â—vent it selfe of it though by the malice of the parties Consider now the vision of the Phophet Micajah concerning the enterprize of Ahab upon Ramoth Gâ—â—â—ad 1. Kings XXII 23-26 I saw the Lord sitting on his Throne and all the host of heaven standing aside him on his right hand and on his left And God said who shall seduce Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead And one said this and another said that And a spirit came forth and stood before the Lord and said I will seduce him And the Lord said wherewith And he said I will goe forth and be a lying spirit in the mouthes of all his Prophets And he said thou shalt seduce him and also prevaile Goe and doe so God who shewed his counsaile to his Prophet in this maner knew well enough what Prophets Ahab delighted in and what they were that â—ought favour at his hands Shall we imagine that when he lets the evill spirit loose whom he knew to be of himselfe officioâ—s enough to the ruine of Gods people and saâ—es goe and prevaile that he considers not their inclination to take fire at his temptation for obtaining favour at Ahabs hands Or Ahab to make use of their credit to win the good King Jehosaphet to his pretenses If these things were in consideration as the meanes to bring about Gods designe upon Ahâ—b here you must pardon me if speaking as a man to men I can expresse the maters of God no otherwise then the scripture doth in the likenesse of an Infinite wise Prince though â—ssured that one act of Gods wisdome which is God attaines and containes all this which the text plainely expresseth did God goe by guesse or doth the Scripture condescending to our infirmitie speak of him in the stile of the Sons of men as the Jewes say and represent to us the order which he designes in those things which he brings to passe in the fashion of a Prince taking counsaile with his servants and vassails what course to take But let us not forget the greatest work of Gods providence that ever the sun â—aw in procuring the redemption of mankind by the malice of Satan and the Jewes in putting our Lord Christ to death The words of S. Peter are very expresse Acts II. 23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsaile foreknowledg of God yee have taken and through wicked hands crucified and killed And again Acts III. 17. 18. And now brethren I know that you did this ignorantly as also did your rulers But God hath thus fulfilled those things which he had foretold by the mouth of his holy prophets that Christ should suffer What was the ignorance of the Rulers we learne by the vote of Caiaphas that swayed the counâ—aile Ioh XI 49. 50. Ye knowing nothing nor argue that it is expedient for us that one man die for the people rather then that the whole Nation perish Ratifying the reason propounded afore If we let him alone thus all will believe on him and the Romans will come and take us and this place and the Nation away What was the ignorance of the people we learne by S. Paul Rom. X 3. Not knowing the righteousnesse of God and willing to establish their own righteousnesse they were not subject to the righteousnesse of God And againe 1. Thess II. 15. 16. he thus qualifieth the Jews Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own Prophets and please not God and oppose all men Forbiding us to speake to the Gentiles that they may be saved To the fulfilling of their sins alwaies For wrath is come upon them to the end The Scribes the Pharises had got â—ossession of the peoples hearts by perswading them that God accepted them as righteous for the outward observation of the carnâ—ll Law of Moses given for the condition by which they held the land of promise They then perswaded them to demand our Lord to death for the same reason for which their predecessors had put their prophets to death because they preached to them that inward spirituall righteousnesse which our Lord demandeth as the condition of obtaining the world to come And for the same reason their successors persecuted the Apostles because not intaylingâ— his righteousnesse upon them as the sâ—ns of Abraham they shewed the gentiles how to become as righteous as â—hey thought themselves The Priests and Rulers and Elderâ— who by the meanes of the Scribes Pharises carryed the people and were not willing to part with their power by receiving Law from our Lord Christ as not believing that he preached his Gospell with an intent to establish them in their power but to take it out of their hands as belonging to the Messias made it their businesse to perâ—wade the people that it would be the ruine of the Nation to acknowledg him for the Messias If God hath assured us that these were the inclinations that brought to passe this godly murther of our Lord shall we believe that he himselfe had them not in consideration when he designed the redemption of mankind by the meanes of it Or that having them in consideration he foresaw not what effect they would have in the Jewes being abandoned to the malice of Satan that procured it If wee will learne the determinate counsaile and foreknowledg of God from the Scriptures we must have recourse to those meanes by which the scriptures teach us that it came to passe For truely it was never dâ—signed nor did God foresee that it would come to passe by other meanes or otherwise then indeed it came to passe It is a coâ—ceit that deserves reverence for Ignatius his sake a disciple of S. Iohn Wâ—o in one of his Epistâ—es informs us that the birth of our Lord and the manifestation of his Godhead in the
consideration of their being changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ represented sacrificed upon the Crosse makes them properly no Sacrifice In the former consideration being properly Oblations let them be improperly Sacrifices For in this sense in the Canon of the Masse Te igitur Clementissime Pater per Jesum Christum filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas ac benedic as hâ—c dona haec munera haec sancta sacrificia illibata Wee therefore humbly beseech and desire thee most mercifull Father through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord to accept and blesse these gifts these presents these holy unstained Sacrifices And not onely here before the Consecration but just before the Lords Prayer and the Communion Per Christum Dominum nostrum Per quem haec omnia semper Domine bona creas sanctificas vivificas benedicis praestas nobis Through Christ our Lord Through whom thou O Lord alwaies createst sanctifiest quickenest and furnishest us with all these good things The repetition of which consideration shows that they are presented to God to be consecrated and made the Eucharist as Oblations out of believers goods According to the form used in divers Greek Liturgies from the words of David 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wee give thee thire own of thine own But when our Lord sayes This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is poured out for you Will any man of sense understand That is now by that which here I do offered up to God for you and the bloud as poured forth Or rather this is that body and bloud that is given to be crucified and poured forth for you shortly upon the Crosse Let it therefore have the nature of a Sacrifice so soon as the Consecration is past It shall have that nature improperly so long as it is not the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse Though truly so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth And accorâ—ing to this truth true Altars they are true Temples true Sacrifices though improperly where and by whom it is ministred But I will not therefore grant that this Sacrificing that is this consecrating the Elements into the Sacrifice is an action done in the person of Christ Though they are agreed that it is done by the rehersing of the words of Christ For the rehersing of Christs words is not an act done in the person of Christ Nor do I take upon mee his person whose words I recite And I have showed that the Consecration is done by the Prayers of the Church immediately though these Prayers are made in virtue of Christs order commanding to do what hee did and thereby promising that the Elements shall become that which hee saith those which hee conâ—ecrated are As for the other opinion which I am not to be the more in love with because I am not satisfied with this it is to be considered that the Elements are offered thrice in the Canon of the Masse The first is that offering which I rehersed last beginning Te igitur going before the Consecration as â—â— agree The second is that which this opinion intendeth agreeing with the other that the Consecration is past by rehersing the words of institution But mine opinion allows not this For I conceive the Consecration is yet in doing till that Prayer be past Vt quotquot ex hâc Altaris participatione Sacro-Sanctum filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione coelesti gratiâ repleamur That as many of us as shall have received the Holy body and bloud of thy Son by this communion of the Altar may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace Which is the later of the two in which I conceive the Consecration to consist as in all other Liturgies in something correspondent to it And truly the very words of the second offering do bear that the Elements are by it offered to God not as consecrated but as to be consecrated supposing the blessing of them to be the consecrating of them as I proved afore Therefore the offering and the presenting of them to God as consecrated is that which is done by the Prayer which follows Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum And nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis whereby the several estates of Christs Church are recommended to God in virtue and consideration of Christs passion here represented and commemorated Not that I intend here to justifie that Prayer for the dead which this containeth but because referring that to consideration in due time all Liturgies have a place where according to S. Paul intercession is made for all States of Christs Church in consideration of the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse represented by this Sacrament And because this intercession is properly the offering up of the the said Sacrifice to God for their necessities And therefore this opinion saith well that the Consecration exhibiteth onely the Sacrifice to be offered up to God by the Prayers of the Church But not by the Prayer which desireth the blessing of the Elements wherein the consecating of them is contained which is that of the elevation in the Canon of the Masse but by those Prayers whereby the effects of Christs Crosse are prayed for in behalf of his Church According to which opinion the consecrating of the Elements will be the Sacrificing of Christ no further than as the body and bloud of Christ are thereby represented as Sacrificed But there will be no further cause of complaint in this then there is cause to complain that there is not such ground for division as the parties would have For though there be onely a general reason of offering no particular consideration of destroying seen in the act of the Church offering either the Elements to be consecrated or the consideration of Christs Crosse represented to render God propitious to his Church Yet are the consecrated Elements no lesse the Sacrifice of Christs Crosse than the presence of Christs body and bloud in them will allow though in order to that Evangelical banquet upon them at which and by which the Covenant of Grace is renewed For the Apostles having made the Eucharist a Sacrifice in this regard I must not count the making of it one offensive I say then that having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and bloud of Christ crucified or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ And the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth is also both propitiatory and impeâ—ratory by virtue of the consecration of it whereby it becometh the
nothing For what Jurisdiction had any civill Magistrate that govâ—rnâ—d Rome over other Cities without the Precinct oâ— it And yet shall we be so â—iâ—â—â—ulous the Canon describing the priviledges of the Church of Rome by those of Alexandria which extended as far as the Government of Aegypâ— â—o confine those of the prime Church of the Empire within the 〈…〉 I suppose therefore they have farre the best cause who suppose 〈◊〉 to be called Regiones suburbicariae which were under the Lieutenant of Rome in oppoâ—tion to the Lieutenant of Italy resident a Milane having under him seven of those Provinces into which that Government was then divided In which regard the other ten Provinces which were under the Lieutenant of the City resident at Rome are properly called Suburbicariae though pâ—rt of them were the Isles of Sicilia Sardinia and Corsica c. And here lies the greatest question nothing else bearing water in my judgement For by this Canon â—ll the right and title of the Church of Rome is to be measured by the right oâ— any one of those Churches which were the Heads of Dioceses taking Dioceses for the residences of Lieutenants all which are to be suppoâ—ed equall in power granting onely Rome the precedence which all Order requiâ—es For what right can the Church of Rome challenge which this Canon acknowleges not Is it right or wrong which the decree of the whole Church alloweth not Strongly argued I confess which notwithstanding I am not satisfied with For the intent of the Ganon being to setle the lights of Alexandria is satisfied by rehearsing the like rights in the Churches of Rome and Antiochiâ— which by supposing as in force of old it setleth for the future But is this to declare and limite the Title thereof in regard of the rest especially for the Western Church which the Councill had no occasion to meddle with Judge first by that which appears In the greatest concernments of the Church concerning Montanus concerning the keeping of Easter concerning the cause of the Novatians of rebaptizing Hereticks of Paulus Samosatenus of the Donatists of Dionysius Alexandrinus In fine concerning those which I mentioned out of S. Cyprians Epistles What one Church can there be named to the concurrence whereof the like respect hath been had in things concerning the Faith and Unity of the Whole as that of Rome For that which follows I think there remains no dispute the priviledges thereof still increasing as well by the acts of Councils as by custome and use And of that I must demand a reason how they should come to be cast upon one had there not been from the beginning a stock of Title exclusive to any other of the greatest Churches acknowledging the order of the Apostles to have provided no further then that the Churches of the chiefe Cities should be the chiefe Churches leaving the rest to the Church upon consideration of the State of the World to determine One particular I must insist upon for the eminence of it I have already mentioned the generall Councils whereof how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches And this admission what can it can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Councill of Nicâ—a though the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Conncils as the Churches of Britaine had their Bishops at the I. Council of Arles at the Councils of Sarâ—ica and of Ariminum in other occasions they may justly seem to referre themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the acts of it So that S. Jerome might very well name Rome and the West as the same paâ—ty in his LXXVII Epistle Haereticum me cum Occidente haereticum cum Aegypto hoc est cum Damaso Petroque condemnent Let them condemn me for an Heretick with the West and with Aegypt that is with Damasus Bishop of Rome and Peter Bishop of Alexandria And against Vigiâ—â—nâ—â—us he calls the Western Churches the Churches of the Apostolick See So S. Basil calls the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Crown of the West Epist X. and S. Austine cont Jul. Pelag. I. 2. Puto tibi eam partem Orbis sufficere debere in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit dominus glorioso Martyrio coronare Cui Ecclesiae praesidentem Beatum Iâ—nocentiuâ— si audire voluisses I conceive that part of the world should serve your turn in which it pleased God to Crown with a glorious Martyrdom the first of his Apostles The President of which Church blessed Innocent if you would have heard He supposes Innocent being over the Church of Rome to be over the Western Church In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril threatens John of Jerusalem that those who will have communion with the West must submit to the sentence of the Synod at Rome against Nestorius Part. I. cap. XXI the leter of Pope Agatho to the Emperour in the VI. General Council Act. IV. supposes the Synods of the Lombards Slaves Frankes Gothes and Britaines to belong to the Synod of Rome and that the Council was to expect account of them from it No otherwise then to the leter of the Synod of Rome to the second Generall Council ninety Bishops of Italy and Gaul concurred according to Theodoret. And Cornelius in S. Hieromes Catalogue writ to Flavianus Bishop of Antiochia from the Synods of Rome Gaul and Africk Whereby it may appear how the Western Churches alwayes went along with that of Rome Which though it give not the Church of Rome that priviledge over the Churches of eight Dioceses which the canons of Nicaea do confirm to the Bishops of Alexandria over the Diocese of Aegypt and the Church of Antiochia over the Eastern Diocâ—ses yet necessarily argueth a singular pre-eminence in it over them all in regard whereof he is stiled Patriarch of the West during the regular Government of the Church and being so acknowledged by King James of excellent memory in his leter to the Cardinall of Perrâ—n may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church that had rather stand divided then own him in that quality But granting the Church of Rome to be regularly the seat of the chiefe Patriarch for so he is stiled in the Council of Chalcedon Act. III. so the Emperour Justine calls Hormisdas so Justinian calls the Bishop of Rome Nov. CIX And the VI Council Act. XVIII counts five seats of Patriarchs And if Gregory Epist XI 54. acknowledge Spain to have no Patriarch and Innocent III. C. grave de Praeb dignit C. antiqua de Privil count but four it is because they would make the Pope more
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
his time which cannot be true otherwise A thing to be wondered at that so knowing a man should look so farr for a reason evidently false having a true one in the text of Bede before his eyes For what is more evident than that the English Bishops of Austines plantation had their Ordination from him not from any Priests But if from him then from one Bishop which was not regular The Nicene Canon requiring the Representatives of the Province the Apostles Canon two at least if not three Whether S. Gregory and his Successors intended that their Power giving Austine his Commission should supply the formality of the Canon or supposed that the Welsh Bishops should joyn with him which afterwards upon the difference that fell out between them either they would not grant or hee would not desire the consecration of the Bishops of that plantation must needs be irregular because it came from Austine alone Nor need wee any other reason why Wilfride went for his consecration into France as the same Bede relateth For that there was the same irregularity also among the Welsh Bishops appears by S. Kentigern who went to Rome to purge it as his life relateth And therefore though Wine having been regularly ordained in France as Malmsbury saith de Gestis Poutif II. joyned with him two Welsh Bishops to consecrate regularly yet their regularity which might be in the consecrating of the said Bishops might alâ—o move Wilfride rather to go into France than to rest content vvith the same But that Niniane being a Welsh Bishop at such time as the Welsh had other Bishops should be ordained by Priests because a vvritten Copy Hist Duâ—â—lm in Biblioth Coton sayes after his time that Galloway had yet no Bishop is a conjecture too slight for a man of that knovvledg For there is appearance enough that under the Welsh the Sea vvas trâ—nslated to Glascow for Kentigern after Niniane And that Plecthelm vvas first Bishop of Galloway under the Saxons after that the Kingdom of Cumberland vvas become English Of the â—uldei in Scotland vvhatsoever is said before the Plantation of S. Columb I challenge â—or a meer fable After it though Bede saith that his Monastery after an unuâ—â—â—l vvay ruled even thâ— Bishops yet vvhere there vvere Bishops no reason can presume that their authority did not ordain though they thought fit that the knovvledg of the Monastery vvhence they came should direct vvhom And therefore vvhatsoever the rights of these Culdei in Scotland might aftervvards be it cannot vvay a sâ—ravvâ—â—â—rds the cause of Episcopacy because never extant in the Church of Scotland but undâ—r it They that shall peruse vvhat the late Lord Pâ—imate hath vvritten in his antiquities of the British Churches and from his infoâ—mation Sir H. Spelman in his Glossâ—ry vvill not allovv them to be any other than Câ—nons that vvâ—re to attâ—nd upon the service of God in the Church Which whether or no before the division of Dioceses in Scotland they might have that right in advanâ—ing of Bishops to all Seas which the Clergy of every Churâ—h had in respâ—ct to their own Church I leave to their antiquaries to determine The extrâ—cts of Philostorgius I give more credit to than to any thing that hath been said of the Scottish Culdei And they I admit relate II. 5. that the â—oâ—â—es who dwelt on the North of the Black Sea had Christianity some LXX years before Ulphilas was made their Bishop For having caried â—ome of the Clergy captives in an inrode they were by them taught Christianity saith Philostorgius But they might have Priests ordained by the next Bishops all having that power in that case Or they might have other Bishops before Theophilus whom the Ecclesiastical Histories reckon at the Council of Nicaea before Ulphilas The want of records will not evidence that those Clergy did all acts of Ecclesiassical power before or made themselves Bishops to do what themselves could not do that is give them the power which they had not themselves I am secure of all that can be said from the state of rural Bishops called Chorepiscopi in the ancient Church Not doubting that any Bishop may communicate any part of his power within his own Church the rule and custom of the whole Church inabling him to do it Socrates and Sozomenus testifie that whereas generally there were no Bishops but in Cities in Cyprus they were settled in Boroughs I have elâ—where observed the same in Africk and Ireland Either Cities were something else there than in other Countries or else the number of Cities could not be so great as the number of Churches in the numerous Africâ—ne Synods and when S. Patrick sounded as many Churches in Ireland as there are dayes in the year Was this any breach upon S. Pauls rule or practice setling Churches in Cities divide a Province or Soveraignty into more or fewer Churches it wayes the same to the whole Church not according to the number of those that vote in their own Synods Unless the Council of Trent could oblige Christendom by a plurality of them that voted there One Diocese of Lincoln will better allow half a douzain rural Bishops to be cut out of it than many Cities in some parts can have Bishops In a word the Rule of the Church supposeth the act of some State which it cannot regulate And is it then strange supposing the superiority of Bishops so much differing in Jurisdiction though for Order the same as I have said that some of them should have a Bishop under him that is answerable to him immediately and to the Synod of the Province by him though according to the Canons of the same with power to Ordain Priests according as the said Synods should allow or withdraw it I will say further that supposing all that I have said of the Hierarchy to be an Ordinance of the Apostles because received by all to be a meer imagination of mine own but granting the unity of the Church to be of Gods Law and the means of maintaining it self to be the consent of the Church and this consent executed by the establishment of Episopacy through the whole Church I can by no means excuse those that go about to put it down from being Schismaticks Whither upon an erroneous conscience they imagine that to be a transgression of Gods Law which the whole Church for so many ages imbracing maketh evident to be according to Gods Law Or whether God having commanded the unity of his Church and his Church having introduced it for a mean to preserve that unity they think it lawfull for themselves to refuse it not believing it to be against Gods Law and therefore within the power of the Church to appoint it For whatsoever can be said of the several customes which severall Churches allowed cannot take place in that which is supposed to be setled and received in all Churches Not is it possible that the Church should continue one as a visible Society and Body
with the pollution of false Gods For truly when it is said that guile was not found in their month We cannot understand any thing more proper then the profession of the Christian Faith forwhich they dyed For of whom can it be more properly said that guile was not found in his mouth then of him that dies rather then transgresse that vvhich he undertook at his Baptisme to professe the name of Christ unto death He that likes not this vvill be obliged to grant that virgins also have the state of Martyrs by this Prophesy For besides all that hath been said to shovv that in all this prophesy save the XXIV none but Martyrs appear in heaven before Gods Throne unlesse vve say that here Virgins also are seene among the Martyrs vvhenas in the beginning of the VII Chapter order is taken for the sealing of those that should escape the vengeance of God in Judaea being Christians and servants of God who in the beginning of the fourteenth appeare againe with the lamb upon mount Sion But the Martyrs soules appeare in heaven before the Throne both in the fift and in the seventh besides what I argue here by consequence drawne from the meaning of the foureteenth it would be a thing incons quent to the text and grain of the Prophesy to say that the servants of God who are preserved by the name of God sealed on their foreheads Apoc. XIV 1. VII 3. from that destruction which involves the persecutors of Christianity should appeare in the same company ranck with the Martyrs Among whom are those that are slaine in the City of Jerusalem Ap. XI 7 8 9. of a several condition from those that are preserved alive Compare wee here with the doctrin of S. Paul 2. Cor. V. 1-4 For we know that if this earthly house of our Tabernacle be dissolved we have a building from God a house not made with hands eternall in the heavens And for this we groan desiring that our dwelling from heaven be vested upon us If so be we shall not be found naked having put it upon us For wee that are in the tabernacle groane as grieved not because we desire to be stripped but to be invested that the mortall may be swallowed up of life The whole text of this discourse manifestly imports that S. Paul expects the resurrection as the accomplishment of his hopeâ— not groaning for the day of his death to have his soule stripped from his body but to have it invested with a heavenly tabernacle made by God his glorified body which bringeth life that swalloweth up the mortality of this As also he saith Rom. VIII 23. That we who have the first fruits of the spirit groane within our selves expecting the adoption even the redemption of our body Where the resurrection is the adoption of those who rise againe to be Sons of God according to the word of our Lord Luke XX. 36. For neither can they dye any more for they are equall to Angels And being children of the resurrection are children of God It is true it appeares by S. Paul that he was no further certified as then of the counsaill of God then to make it a question whether he and the Christians of his time should be found alive by the Lord Christ at his coming to judgement For therefore he saies with an if If we shall not be found naked of our bodies when we put on glorious bodies Though he had said afore that if this body be dissolved we shall have a heavenly body for it And so 1 Cor. XV. 57. The dead shall rise incorruptible and we shall be changed And 1 Tim. IV. 15. 17. We that are left alive unto the comming of the Lord shall not prevent those that are falne asleep Againe We that are left alive shall be ravished with them in the clouds into the ayre to meet the Lord And so shall be alwaies with the Lord. So that the thousand yeares which it is revealed to S. Iohn that the Church shall indure after the fall of Babylon and the judgement exercised upon the whore Apoc. XX. is a further revelation of Gods will and pleasure for the subsistance of Christianity with the world how much soever he hath determined it shall indure more then he hath there declared But notwithstanding seeing that S. Paul though uncertaine thereof suspends the accomplishment of his and our happinesse upon the resurrection Most manifest it is that the stripping of our bodies by death is not the terme of Gods promise according to S. Paul Wherefore when it folowes Having therefore alwaies confidence and knowing that dwilling in the body wee are â—ilgrims from God for we walke by faith not by sight we desire with confiderce rather to travell out of the body and to dwell with God Supposing that S. Paul expected this change by Christs second coming before he died he contradicts not himselfe when he refers it to the resurrection which if we think that he assignes it unto the meane time wee make him to do Therefore S. Iohn 1 Epistle III. 2. Beloved we are now the Children of God But it is not yet manifest what wee shall be Yet wee know that when he or it is made manifest we shall be like him for wee shall see him as he is Sons of God because Sons of the resurrection we saw before in our Lords words Sons of God because adopted to his spirit wee have here in S. Iohn But as S. Paul made our adoption to be the redemption of the body so Eph VI. 30. Grieve not the holy spirit of God saith he by whom yee are sealed to the day of redemption And â— 14 speaking of the same spirit Who is the earnest of our inheritance untill the redemption of the purchase As our Lord saith also Luke XX. 28. Lift up your heades for your redemption draweth nigh speaking of his second coming If therefore neither our adoption and redemption nor Gods purchase be compleat before we rise againe whether wee read in S. Iohn When he shall be made manifest or when it shall be made manifest what we shall be the resurrection is the time For if wee be not like Angels till the resurrection as our Lord saies much lesse like God or like our Lord Christ as S. Iohn sayes As for the terme of seeing God upon which the School Doctors have stated the controversy of the Saints happinesse in the meane time It is a thing evident enough that the speech is borrowed from the comparison between Moses and other Prophets Num. XII 6 7 8. Where God saith he will deale with other prophets by a vision or a dreame but with Moses face to face And yet S. Paule 1. Cor. XIII 12. comparing the knowledge of God by faith with the knowledge of God by sight Wee see now by a glasse in a riddle but then face to face Now wee know in part then shall I know as I am knowne Which S. â—ohn calls as he is for sure
such thing as a Councill according to the supposition of the congregations And therefore in the acts of Counciles which are the Lawes whereby the Church is to be ruled the people can have no further satisfaction then to see them openly debated under the knowledge of the people Indeed the interest of Soveraigne powers in Church maters which I allow not onely in order to the publicke peace but as they are members of the Catholicke Church and so trusted with the protection of all that is Catholicke in behalf of the people gives them that power over the acts of Counciles which by and by I shal declare Which though grounded upon another account and belonging to them in an other quality then that which the constitution of the Church createth is notwithstanding provided by God to secure his people of their Christianity together with the unity of the Church But the suffrage of the people of every Church that is their acknowledgment that they know no exception against the persons in nomination for Bishops or other orders of the Church as it agreeth with the proceedings of the Apostles and primative Church so must it needs be a most powerfull meanes to maintaine that strict bond of love and reverence between the Clergy and the people in the recovery whereof the unity of the Church consisteth And supposing publick penance retrived without which it is in vaine to pretend Reformation in the Church there can be no stronger meanes to maintaine Christianity in effect then the satisfaction of the people though not in the measure of penance to be injoyned yet in the performing of it Alwaies provided that this interest of the people be grounded upon no other presumption that any man is the child of God or in the state of Grace and indowed with Gods spirit then that which the law of the Church whereby he injoyes communion which the Church createth For this presumption must needs be stronger concerning the Clergy by their estate then it can be concerning the people Because by their estate they are to be the choice of the people And though as all morall qualities are subject to many exceptions some of the people may be better Christians then some of the Clergy yet a legall presumption that any of them is so must needs be destructive to the Unity of the Church But no disorder in religion can be so great as to justifie the obdurate resolution of the Church of Rome to withdraw the scriptures from the people There is nothing more manifest then that the lamentable distractions which we are under have proceeded from the presumption of particular Christians up on their understanding in the scriptures proceeding to think their quality capable of reforming the Church Onely those that can have joy of so much mischief to our common Christianity can thinke otherwise But I am not therefore induced to thinke our Christianity any other then the Christianity of those whom our Lord whom S. Paul and other Apostles and Prophets exhort and incourage to the study of the scriptures Whom S. Chrysostome and others of the Fathers so earnestly deale with to make it their businesse All the offense consists in this that private Christians observe not the bounds of that which is Catholike when they come to read the scriptures For if they be not content to confine the sense of all they read within that rule of faith in which the whole Church agreeth because they understand not how they stand together If they thinke the Lawes of the whole Church can command things contrary to that which God by scripture commandeth It is no marvaile they should proceed to make that which they think they see in the Scripures though indeed they see it not a Law to the Church For they think it is Gods will that ties them to it But if the Church be the Church as I have showed it is then was the Scripture never given private Christians to make them Judges what all Christians are bound to believe what the Church is to injoine the Church for the condition of communion with the Church If any man object the inconvenience that it appeareth not who or where that Church is and so we are confined to those boundes that cannot appeare This inconvenince is the clearest evidence that I can produce for the Catholike Church For unlesse we grant this inconvenience to come by Gods institution and appointment we must confesse the unity of the Church to be Gods appointment because the dissolution thereof produceth this inconvenience For were the unity of the Church in being I could easily send any man to the Catholike Church by sending him to his owne Church Which by holding communion with the whole Church must needs stand distinguished from those which hold it not though under the name of Churches And he who resorts to the Church for resolution in the Scriptures supposes that he is not to break from the Church for that wherein the whole Church is not agreed Now that the unity of the Church is broken in pieces it remaines no more visible to common sense what it is wherein the whole Church agrees as the condition for comunion with it But the meanes to make it appear againe having disappeared through disunion in the Church is that discourse of reason which proceeds upon supposition of visible unity established by God in the Church And the meanes to make it appear againe to common sense is the restoring of that unity in the Church by the interruption whereof it disappeareth Then shall the edification of particular Christians in our common Christianity proceed without interruption by meanes of the Scriptures every one supposing that his edification in the common Christianity dependeth not upon the knowledge of those things wherein the Church agreeth not but of those things wherein it agreeth In the mean time it remaineth that offenses proceed to be infinite and endlesse because men giving no bounds to their studies in the Scriptures imagine the edification of the Church to consist in that wherein themselves not regarding the consent of the Church have placed their own edification in the Scriptures CHAP. XXXII How great the Power of the Church and the effect of it is The right of judging the causes of Christians câ—aseth when it is protected by the State An Objection If Ecclâ—siasticall Power were from God Secular Power could not limit the use of it Ground for the Interest of the State in Church matters The inconsequence of the argument The concurrence of both Interests to the Law of the Church The Interest of the State in the indowment of the Church Concurrence of both in matrimoniall causes and Ordinations Temporall penalties upon Excommunication from the State No Soveraigne subject to the greater Excommunication but to the lesse The Rights of the Jewes State and of Christian Powers in Religion partly the same partly not The infinite Power of the Pope not founded upon acts of Episcopacy but upon the Secular Powers
which it standeth For it is manifest that the powers from whose acts this argument is drawne are such as hold communion with the Church of Rome and acknowledg the Pope in behalf of it As manifest it is that the Pope not onely challengeth to be head of the Church in Church maters but maintaineth Friers Canonists to chalenge for him Soveraigne power in civill causes over all persons in order to Christianity To say then that by the acts which they limite the use of Ecclesiastical power by they pretend that there is no Power in the Church but what they give it is to say that by those acts they contradict themselves and proclaime their own professing themselves Sons of the Church not onely to be without cause but to signifie nothing as words without sense Which with what modesty it can be affirmed in the face of Christendome I leave to Christendome to judge Onely I will here summon the liberties of the Gallicane Church as they are digested by that worthy Advocate of Paris P. Pithaeus to give sentence in this cause being a peece much appealed to by the Father of this argument as that which deserves to be accounted of prime consequence in the businesse I desire those that will take the pains to looke into them to tell me whether they find not these two to be the first two points of them That the King of France is Soveraigne in his own dominions and that he is Protector of the Canons Liberties and priviledges of the Church And then I desire them to imploy the common understanding of men to pronounce whether these be not the same points of secular interest in Church maters which I have advanced Namely as Soveraigne to have no competitor in the right of the Crowne and as Christian to be borne Protector of the Catholicke and Apostolick Faith and of the Church and of the Lawes of it which have no being but upon supposition of that faith whereof one part is the beliefe of the Catholike Church Onely I shall take notice that they protest that they are called Liberties and not Priviledges on purpose to signifie that they are no exceptions to the common right of all Soverainities in Church maters but essentiall points of it Which they call the liberties of the French Church in particular because the Kings of France they thinke have maintained them better then other Princes of Christendome have done In consequence of this collection of Pithaeus besids the proofs of them in two great volums we have of late a commentary of Petrus Puteanus upon these Liberties as they are digested by Pithaeus the businesse whereof is first to make good that they are of more unquestionable right in France then they have been and are practiced also by other Princes and states of Christendome which is answer enough to this whole argument as it stands upon the authority of Christendome expessed by the acts of it Neverthelesse I shall further alledge in this cause the collection which Frier Paul of the order delli Servi hath made of the articles accorded betweene the Pope and the state of Venice concerning the Inquisition the bounds of secular Power in the cognizance of those causes wherein that court may pretend concurrence of Jurisdiction with it I will not undertake to say that the state of Venice maintaining the Inquisition upon such termes as this collection or Capitular declareth doth maintaine those persons in the use of Ecclesiasticall power to whom by the common right of the whole Church it belongeth Neither will I maintaine that whatsoever those articles distinguish and allow the Inquisition is by virtue of the common right of the whole Church For who can ty him to expresse every where what is by Ecclesiasticall right and what of secular privilege by free act of tâ—e state bestowed upon the Church as all states that would be held Christians have alwaies done This I say that he that shall take the paines to look into it shall finde the bounds of secular and Ecclesiastical power so expressely distinguished upon the reasons which I have aleged that it shall be too late to say that they who acknowledge a Church and certaine rights by Gods Lawe belonging to the foundation of it doe contradict themselves when they do limit the exercise of those rights Being ready further to maintaine that they doe nothing but right when they limit the exercise of them according to the reasons which I have advanced As for the Leviathan who hath made himselfe so merry with compasing a state Christian in which the Ecclesiasticall power is distinct from the secular with the governement of Oberon and Queene Mabbe and theire Pugs in the land of Fairies If he speake of a state framed according to the opinion of those that make the Pope soveraigne in all causes and over all persons in order to Christianity I grant he hath reason For there is not nor can be any such state and it would be indeed a kingdome of confusion and darkenesse Nay where the Church it selfe is Soveraigne as in the Popes dominions show the difference of the grounds upon which severall rights and powers are held and exercised will be in some points though not in all no lesse visible then else where But if he intend by consequence to say the same of all Christian states that acknowledg an Ecclesiasticall power derived from the Law of God and not from the secular then I remit to those that shall have perused the practice of Christendome but in those short peeces that I have named whether they believe those states which so governe themselves to be the land of Fairies or his wits that writ such things to have beene troubled with Fairies And now in particular to say what the maintenance of the Church in giving Lawes to the Church requires that is to say in determining those maters the determination whereof becomes necessary for the maintenance of unity in the Communion of the Church It is easy to deduce from the premises that every Christian is under two obligations One to the Church which as a Christian he is bound to communicate with The other as belonging to that state of Government which he believeth to be lawfully setled in his country By the act of those whom he believes to have right to oblige respectively these two societies which if we speake onely of that part of the Church which is in one soverainty consist of the same persons if they be all of the same Church every Christian is respectively obliged For by the premises it remaines manifest that it is the act of the Church to determine the mater of Ecclesiasticall Law and give it force to oblige the respective part thereof under paine of forseiting the communion of the Church But the act of the state either not to hinder this effect when and where Christianity is onely tollerated as a corporation which it alloweth Or to make them Lawes of the state when and where
the whole state is of the same Church as a corporation consisting of the same persons as the state That this is from the beginning the sense of Christendom easily appeares supposing that which I have showed by the premises that the Canons of the Church were not first in force and limited to the termes which we have in writing as the acts of generall or particular Councils from the date of those Councils But by unwritten custome derived from the Orders given out by the Apostles and their successors unto the Churches of their founding and by the intercourse of all Churches with the authority of the Clergy and consent of the people in each setled over the whole This for the time that the Church was a corporation sometimes persecuted sometimes tolerated by the Empire during which time it were ridiculous to question whether Councils were held or not But neverthelesse impossible to derive the customes of the Church from their acts After Constantine the protection of Christianity was become so firme a law of the Empire that Julian though absolute Soveraigne and miserably desirous to roote it out could not have his will of it during his short reigne And though generall Councils were called onely by the Emperors for the reasons aforesaid and particular councils might be called as oft as they pleased yet the Canon of Nicaea which provides for the holding of them twice a yeare showes the acts of them to be all the acts of the Church though with allowance of that state And what prejudice to any state in all this That God should have provided a Corporation for the Church to determine all maters determinable concerning that wherein the communion thereof consisteth Providing the state oâ— a right Power as Soveraigne to suppresse whatsoever prejudiceth the peace or weale of the state no way prejudiciall to Christianity because there is nothing in Christianity prejudiciall to any state And as Christian to see the persons trusted on behalfe of the Church observe the due bounds as well of their authority as of the mater of their acts wherein it is limited either by the word of God or by greater authority within the Church He that lookes upon the French the Spanish the English the Germane Councils will find sufficient marks as well of the ratification of secular power as of the determination of the Church Thus far the businesse is cleare For if the Rescripts of the Popes in the West which are extant after Syricius if the Canonicall Epistiles of some great Bishops in the East and afterwards the rescripts of the Patriarches of Constantinople make up the Canon Law by which they were respectively governed the allowance of the state is evident enough where the authority of the Church onely acteth But there are in the Roman Lawes abundance of acts especially of the Emperours after Justinian which give a forme and not onely force to the ordering of Church maters which is indeed to give Law to the Church obliging the Church to execute the same And there is a most eminent instance in France when Charles VII tooke occasion upon dissension between the Pope and the Councile of Basil by a convocation of his Nobles and Clergy to give a forme to the exercise of Ecclesiasticall Law within his dominions by an act called the Pragmatick sanction which tooke place in that kingom â—ill the Concordates between Francis the I. and Leo X. Pope And that with such approbation as seemes to carry the face of a protestation of the whole Church and kingdome against the said concordates Here is indeed wherewith to justifie an extraordinary course of proceeding when present disorder required an expedient And the disorder in Church maters which some alledge for the occasion whereupon Charles the Great caused the French Capitular to be made tends to the same purpose Nor doe I deny the acts of the Easterne Emperors or other soverains may be beneficiall to the Church by the inexecution of the proper Lawes of the Church and the difficulty of providing new that may be availeable But to provide with all that they may be more prejudiciall in the example of superseding the authority of the Church then beneficiall in the providing against present abuses I have given you an instance in mariages upon divorce and for the consequence of it I claime that no such acts be taken for precedents but stand liable to examination upon the principles premised though possibly usefull for the time and obliging the Church to use them for the common good Neither is it enough to prove that God hath not instituted both these interests in Church maters that both may erre and abuse their power oppose one another that it may become questionable what the one or the other of these powers may or ought to do which of those that belong to both are to follow For answer I hold it enough for me resting in the generall afore established to say That there is appearance of reason that secular Powers knowing how much it concerns both the interest of their estates and the salvation of their own soules that the Church under them be maintained in unity will not interrupt the Church in the use of that right which duely limited can adde nothing to their soveraignties if they should seize it into their hands nor take any thing from them being maintained in their hands who by Gods law are to hold it As for the Church and those that claime under the Church what appearance is there that they should attempt upon their Soveraigne but disorder in State upon difference of claime and title which what Law preventeth For as for that one instance of the Bishops of Rome and the occasion of their exempting themselves from the allegiance of the Empire I am to speak anon So that the quiet of Christendome as for this point will require no more but that the common understanding of men be conducted to discover these bounds in all publick actions publick persons believing that it is for the publick interesse as indeed it is to observe them in their proceedings If that cannot be obtained it is vaine to demand why God hath given a Law which by the partialities of the world may become uselesse and not serve to direct particular mens proceedings with quiet much more to argue that there is no such Law because it does not For we know both that God gives no Lawes but to them to whom he gives free choice to observe them or not And also that he hath given the Gospel and Christianity upon condition of bearing Christs Crosse whereof the vexations which the partialities framed upon occasion of this Law doe produce is a part Now the indowment of the Church being part of the subject of of Ecclesiasticall Law it will be requisite here to say how it is and how it is not exempt from secular right Seeing then that all Christian states and kingdomes acknowledging the Church a Corporation founded by God and
for poor soules that they receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist They who depart from the Church that they may minister the Sacraments on such grounds and to such effects as the Church allowes not incurre the nullities and sacriledges which departing from the Church inferreth But if beside the Faith of the Church the authority of the Church be supposed to the effect of the Sacraments how shall the Sacraments be Sacraments though ministred upon profession of the true Faith where no authority of the Church can be pretended for the ministring of them Or where it can onely be pretended but is indeed usurped and void Posterity will never forget that there are in a Land inhabited by Christians called England Country Parishes in which the Sacraments have not been ministred for so many years as the order of the Church of England hath been superseded by the late warre If the Word and Sacraments be the marks of the Church what pretense for a Church where there is indeed a pretense of the Word though no presumption that it is Gods but of Sacraments not so much as a pretense What hath the rest of England deserved of the Congregations or of the Presbyteries that they should be left destitute of the meanes of salvation because they cannot see reason to be of Congregations or Presbyteries Lay men preach and Lay men go to Church to hear them preach because they cannot preach themselves at home to their families The horror of profaning the Sacraments of the Church by Sacriledge is yet alive to make them tremble still at usurping to celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist But will those Lay men that preach answer for the Lay mens soules to whom they preach that they have sufficient means of salvation by hearing them preach being of no Church that might answer that it is Gods Word which they preach ministring no Sacraments for a mark of the Church Is it possible a Christian should hold himself able to preach who holds not himself able to baptize Or is it the appetite of devouring consecrated goods that insnares men to preach who when it comes to baptizing had rather let innocent soules perish then own the authority of the Church which inables every Christian to baptize in case of necessity because they know they usurp the office of preaching without authority from the Church It is I that have said that a Lay man may be authorized to preach by the Church And I believe still I said true in it But shall I therefore answer for him that preacheth without authority from the Church Should he preach by authority from the Church there were presumption for his hearers that it is the Word of God which the Church authorizeth When he preacheth without authority from the Church shall he not answer for the soules whom he warrants salvation by his preaching without Church or Word or Sacraments But these are not the Godly Those that know themselves such are thereby authorized to retire themselves into Congregations that they may injoy the purity of the Ordinances It is then mens Godlinesse that inables them to forsake the Church and betake themselves into Congregations And indeed I know an Oxford Doctor who to prove himselfe no Schismaticke for it hath alledged that he can be no Schismatick because he knowes himself to be Godly and to have Gods Spirit I deny not that he hath alledged other reasons why he is no Schismaticke the ground whereof I considered afore But what Quaker could not have alledged the Spirit of God as well as he And did not he who pretends himself Christ alledge reasons for it as well as pretend the Spirit A nice mistake it is to imagine that a Christian is to accept the Scriptures for the Word of God because the Spirit of God assures him that so they are For of a truth untill the Spirit of God move him to be a Christian he accepteth them not for such When it doth he is moved so to accept them by the Spirit of God as by the effective cause But for reasons which though contained in the Scriptures yet were they not visibly true before a man can accept the Scriptures for the Word of God he could never so accept them by Gods Spirit Unlesse we can imagine the virtue of Gods Spirit not to depend upon the preaching of his Gospel which I suppose onely Enthusiasts do imagine Nor doth the Spirit of God distinguish to any Christian the Apochrypha from Canonicall Scripture but by such meanes as may make the difference visible No more doth it assure him that he is a good Christian but upon the knowledge of such resolutions and actions wherein Christianity consisteth If it be requisite to make a man no Schismatick that it be not his own fault that he is not of the Catholicke Church If he perswade himselfe upon unsufficient reasons that there is no such thing by Gods Law as the visible body of a Catholick Church Just it is with God to leave such a one to thinke it Gods Spirit that assures him a godly man being a Schismatick It is not therefore supposition of invisible godlinesse that can priviledge men to withdraw themselves from the Church into Congregations supposing such a thing as a Catholicke Church The purity being invisible but the barre to it separation from Gods Church visible the Ordinances for which they separate will remaine their own Ordinances not Gods The Presbyterians sometimes pleade their Ordination in the Church of England for the authority by which they ordaine others against the Church of England to doe that which they received authority from the Church of England to doe provided that according to the order of it A thing so ridiculously senselesse that common reason refuseth it Can any State any society doe an act bâ— virtue whereof there shall be right and authority to destroy it Can the Ordination of the Church of England proceeding upon supposition of a solemne promise before God and his Church to execute the ministery a man receiveth according to the Order of it inable him to doe that which he was never ordained to doe Shall he by failing of his promise by the act of that power which supposed his promise receive authority to destroy it Then let a man obtaine the kingdome of heaven by transgressing that Christianity by the undertaking whereof he obtained right to it They are therefore meere Congregations voluntarily constituted by the will of those all whose acts even in the sphere of their ministery once received are become voide by theire failing of that promise in consideration whereof they were promoted to it Voide I say not of the crime of Sacrilege towards God which the usurpation of Core constituteth but of the effect of Grace towardes his people For the like voluntary combining of them into Presbyteries and Synodes createth but the same equivocation of wordes when they are called Churches to signify that which is visible by their usurpation in point of fact
who create the parties by heading the division have to look about them least they become guilty of the greatest part of soules which in reason must needs perish by the extremities in which it consisteth And the representing of the grounds thereof unto the parties though it may seem an office unnecessary for a private Christian to undertake yet seemeth to me so free from all imputation of offense in discharging of our common Christianity and the obligation of it that I am no lesse willing to undergoe any offense which it may bring upon me then I am to want the advantages which allowing the present Reformation might give me In the mean time I remaine obliged not to repent me of the resolution of my nonage to remaine in the communion of the Church of England There I find an authority visibly derived from the act of the Apostles by meanes of their successors Nor ought it to be of force to question the validity thereof that the Church of Rome and the communion thereof acknowledgeth not the Ordinations and other Acts which are done by virtue of it as done without the consent of the whole Church which it is true did visibly concurre to the authorizing of all acts done by the Clergy as constituted by virtue of those Lawes which all did acknowledge and under the profession of executing the offices of their severall orders according to the same For the issue of that dispute will be triable by the cause of limiting the exercise of them to those termes which the Reformation thereof containeth which if they prove such as the common Christianity expressed in the Scriptures expounded by the original practice of the whole Church renders necessary to be maintained notwithstanding the rest of the Church agree not in them the blame of separation that hath insued thereupon will not be chargeable upon them that retire themselves to them for the salvation of Christian soules but on them who refuse all reasonable compliance in concurring to that which may seem any way tollerable But towards that triall that which hath been said must suffice The substance of that Christianity which all must be saved by when all disputes and decrees and contradictions are at an end is more properly maintained in that simplicity which all that are concerned are capable of by the terms of that Baptisme which it ministreth requiring the profession of them from all that are confirmed at years of discretion then all the disputes on both sides then all decrees on the one side all confessions of faith on the other side have been able to deliver it And I conceive I have some ground to say so great a word having been able by limiting the term of justifying faith in the writings of the Apostles according to the same to resolve upon what termes both sides are to agree if they will not set up the rest of their division upon something which the truth of Christianity justifieth not on either side For by admitting Christianity that is the sincere profession thereof to be the Faith which onely justifyeth in the writings of the Apostles whatsoever is in difference as concerning the Covenant of Grace is resolved without prejudicing either the necessity of Grace to the undertaking the performing the accepting of it for the reward or the necessity of good works in consideration for the same The substance of Chrianity about which there is any difference being thus secured there remaines no question concerning Baptisme and the Eucharist to the effect for which they are instituted being ministred upon this ground and the profession of it with the form which the Catholick Church requireth to the consecration of the Eucharist Nor doth the Church of England either make Sacraments of the rest of the seven or abolish the Offices because the Church of Rome makes them Sacraments Nor wanteth it an order for the daily morning and evening service of God for the celebration of Festivalls and times of Fasting for the observation of ceremonies fit to create that devotion and reverence which they signify to vulgar understandings in the service of God But praying to Saints and worshipping of Images or of the Eucharist Prayers for the delivery of the dead out of Purgatory the Communion in one kind Masses without Communions being additions to or detractions from that simplicity of Gods service which the originall order of the Church delivereth visible to common reason comparing the present order of the Church of Rome with the Scriptures and primitive records of the Church there is no cause to think that the Catholick Church is disowned by laying them aside It is true it was an extraordinary act of Secular Power in Church maters to inforce the change without any consent from the greater part of the Church But if the matter of the change be the restoring of Lawes which our common Christianity as well as the Primitive orders of the Church of both which Christian Powers are borne Protectors make requisite the secular power acteth within the sphere of it and the division is not imputable to them that make the change but to them that refuse their concurrence to it Well had it been had that most pious and necessary desire thereof to restore publick Penance been seconded by the zeal and compliance of all estates and not stifled by the tares of Puritanisme growing up with the Reformation of it For as there can be no just pretense of Reformation when the effect of it is not the frequentation of Gods publick service in that forme which it restoreth but the suppressing of it in that form which it rejecteth So the communion of the Eucharist being the chiefe office in which it consisteth the abolishing of private Masses is an unsusticient pretense for Reformation where that provision for the frequenting of the communion is not made which the restoring of the order in force before private Masses came in requireth Nor can any meane be imagined to maintaine continuall communion with that purity of conscience which the holinesse of Christianity requireth but the restoring of Penance In fine if any thing may have been defective or amisse in that order which the Church of England establisheth it is but justice to compare it in grosse with both extreames which it avoideth and considering that it is not in any private man to make the body of the Church such as thâ—y could wish to serve God with to rest content in that he is not obliged to become a party to those things which he approves not conforming himself to the order in force in hope of that grace which communion with the Church in the offices of Gods service promiseth For consider againe what meanes of salvation all Christians have by communion with the Church of Rome All are bound to be at Masse on every Festivall day but to say onely so many Paters and so many Aves as belong to the hour Not to assist with their devotions that which they understand not much lesse
who professe the true Christ Nor under the Law were granted but to those who professed the true God And for this cause they are called by S. Paul 1 Cor. XII 7. the manifestation of the Spirit because they manifest the presence of God in his Church As 1 Cor. XIV 22-25 hee saith that unbelievers seeing the secrets of their hearts revealed by those graces were moved to fall on their faces and worship God declaring that God is in his Church of a truth Those therefore who are thus witnessed by God upon his witnesse are to be received whatsoever they deliver in Gods name concerning either the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Christ For how can any man imagine that upon every new revelation declared by a Prophet upon every new letter written or act done by an Apostle a new evidence should be requisite to attest a new Commission from God Especially the presumption that God will not suffer his people to be abused by trusting him being necessary and not onely reasonable Since therefore our Lord and his Apostles carry this quality no lesse than did Moses and the Prophets it followes of necessity that their writings and what else they may have ordained are no lesse the Law of God no lesse obliging than the Law of Moses by virtue of their Commission which makes their acts in Gods name to be Gods acts Though civil Law they are not till civil Powers binde them upon their Subjects CHAP. IV. Neither the Dictate of Gods Spirit nor the authority of the Church is the reason of believing any thing in Christianity Whether the Church be before the Scripture or the Scripture before the Church The Scriptures contain not the Infallibility of the Church Nor the consent of all Christians IT is now time to proceed to the resolution of some part of those disputes and opinions which wee showed the world divided into upon occasion of the question how Controversies of Faith are to be tryed and ended That is to say so much of them as must be determined by him that will proceed in this dispute For supposing the premises to be true I shall not make any difficulty to conclude That neither the dictate of the Spirit of God to the Spirits of particular Christians that is the presumption of it nor the authority of the Church that is the presumption of the like dictate to any persons that may be thought to have power of obliging the Church is a competent reason to decide the meaning of the Scripture or any Controversie about mater of Faith obliging any man therefore to believe it And by consequence that the authority of the Church that is of persons authorized to give sentence in behalf of the Body of the Church here understood is not Infallible which if it were it must be without question admitted for a competent reason of believing all such sentences to be Infallibly true The truth of this Conclusion is demonstrated by the premises if any thing in a mater of this nature can be counted demonstrative If whatsoever the Spirit of God can be presumed to dictate to the Spirit of any Christian presupposeth the truth of Christianity as that which must try it whether onely a presumption or truth then can no mans word that professes Christianity be the reason why another man should believe For whosoever it is that gives the sentence by professing Christianity pretendeth to have a reason for what hee professeth which reason and not his judgment if it be good obligeth all Christians as well as him to believe For being once resolved that wee are obliged to believe whatsoever comes from those persons whom wee are convinced to believe that God imployed to declare his will to us Whatsoever is said to come from them must for the same reason be received and therefore by the same meanes said to come from them as it is said that they came from God On the other side whatsoever cannot by the same means be said to come from them can never by any means be said to come from God who hath given us no other means to know what hee would have us believe but those whom hee hath imployed on his message Wherefore seeing the authority of the Church supposeth the truth of Christianity of necessity it supposeth the reason for which whatsoever can be pretended to belong to Christianity is receivable Because supposing for the present though not granting that the Church is a Body which some persons by Gods appointment have authority to oblige it is manifest that no man can be vested with this authority but hee must bear the profession of a Christian and by consequence suppose the reasons upon which whatsoever belongs to the profession of a Christian is receivable For that which cannot be derived as for the evidence of it from those means by which wee stand convicted that Christianity stands upon true motives cannot be receivable as any part of it And therefore however the generality of this reason may obscure the evidence of it to them that take not the pains to consider it as it deserves yet the truth of it supposes no more than all use of reason supposes that all knowledg that is to be had proceeds upon something presupposed to be known In which case it would be very childish to consider that the Church is more ancient in time than the Scriptures at least than some part of them as the Writings of the Apostles for example in some sort then all Scriptures if wee understand the people of God and the Church to be the same thing For to passe by sor the present the Fathers before the Law as the people of Israel were Gods people by the Covenant of the Law before they received the Law written in the five Books of Moses So was the authority of Moses imployed by God to mediate that Covenant both good and sufficient before they by accepting the Law became Gods people And upon this authority alone and not upon any authority founded upon their being Gods people free and possessed of the Land of Promise to be ruled by themselves and their own Governors dependeth the credit of Moses and the Prophets Writings In like manner the being of the Church whether a Society and Corporation or not supposing the profession of Christianity and that the receiving of the Gospel which is the Covenant of Grace and that the authority of our Lord and his Apostles as sent by God to establish it Manifest it is that the credit of their Writings depends on nothing else but is supposed to the being of the Church whatsoever it is Which if it be so no lesse manifest it must be that nothing is receivable for truth in Christianity that cannot be evidenced to proceed from that authority that is more antient than the being of the Church as a truth declared by some act of that authority And therefore it would be childish to allege priority of time for the Church if perhaps
it may be said in some regard that the Church was before the Scriptures when as in order of reason it is evident that the truth of Christianity is supposed to the being of it inasmuch as no man can be or be known to be of the Church but as hee is or is known to be a Christian And truly those that dispute the authority of the Church to be the the reason to believe the sentence of it in mater of Faith to be true are to consider what they will say to that opinion which utterly denies any such authority any such thing as a Church Understanding the Church to be a Society founded by Gods appointment giving publick authority to some persons so or so qualified by that appointment in behalf of the whole For this all must deny that admit Erastus his opinion of Excommunication to be true if they will admit the consequence of their own doctrine Which opinion I have therefore premised in staring this Question that it may appear to require such an answer as may not suppose the being of the Church in that nature but may be a means to demonstrate it But as it is not my intent to begg so great a thing in question by proceeding upon supposition of any authority in the Church before I can prove it to be a Corporation founded with such authority as the foundation of it requireth So is it as farre from my meaning to deny that authority which I do not suppose For hee that denieth the authority of the Church to be the reason why any thing is to be taken for truth or for the meaning of the Scripture may take the due and true authority of the Church to be a part of that truth which is more ancient than the authority of the Church Inasmuch as it must be believed that God hath founded a Society of them which professe Christianity by the name of the Church giving such authority to some members of it in behalf of the whole as hee pleased before it can be believed that this or that is within the authority of the Church For that there is a Church and a publick authority in it and for it and what things they are that fall under that authority if it be true is part of that truth which our Lord and his Apostles whose authority is more ancient than the Church have declared Indeed if it were true that the first truth which all Christians are to believe and for the reason of it to believe every thing else is the saying of persons so and so qualified in the Church then were it evident that the belief of that which is questioned in religion could not be resolved into any other principle But if it be manifest by the motives of Christianity that the authority of the Apostles is antecedent to it that all Scripture and the meaning of Scripture which signifies nothing beside it own meaning and Tradition of the Apostles if any such Tradition over and above Scripture may appear is true not supposing it as appeares by the premises then is the authority of the Church no ground of Faith and so not Infallible There are indeed sundry Objections made both out of Scripture and the Fathers to weaken and to shake such an evident truth which are not here to be related till wee have resolved as well what is the reason of believing in Controversies of Faith as what is not In the mean time if wee demand by what means any person that can pretend to give sentence in Controversies of Faith knowes his own sentence to be infallible or upon what ground hee gives sentence Hee that answers by Scripture or authority of Writers that professe to have learned from the Scriptures or reasons depending on the authority of our Lord and his Apostles acknowledges the authority of the Church not to be the reason of believing For what need wee all this if it were If hee say by the same means for which these are receivable that is by revelation from God It will be presently demanded to make evidence of such revelation the same evidence as wee have for the truth of the Scriptures Which because it cannot be done therefore is this plea laid aside even by them who neverthelesse professe to imbrace the Communion of the Church of Rome because they believe the Church to be Infallible But if it be destructive to all use of reason to deny the conclusion admitting the premises then let him never hope to prevaile in any dispute that holds the conclusion denying the premises For to hold the sentence of the Church Infallible when the means that depend upon the authority of our Lord and his Apostles proves whatsoever is to be believed without supposing any such thing when revelation independent upon their authority there is acknowledged to be none averreth Infallibility in the sentence of the Church denying the onely principle that can inferre it And therefore those that speak things so inconsequent so inconsistent I shall not grant that they speake those things which themselves think and believe but rather that like men upon the rack they speak things which themselves may and in some sort do know not to be true For whosoever holds an opinion which hee sees an argument against that hee cannot resolve is really and truly upon the rack and of necessity seeks to escape by contradicting what himself confesseth otherwise Which every man of necessity doth who acknowledging the reason of believing Christianity to lye in the authority of our Lord and his Apostles challengeth neverthelesse that Infallability which is the reason of believing to all sentences of the Church the mater of which sentence if it be true the reason of it must depend immediately upon the same authority upon which the authority of the Church which sentenceth dependeth But the consequence of this assertion deserves further consideration because all that followes depends upon it Suppose that the Scriptures prove themselves to be the Word of God by the reasons of believing contained in them witnessed by the common sense of all Christians For this admits no dispute If the same consent can evidence any thing belonging to the mater of Faith that will appear to oblige the Faith of all Christians upon the same reason as the Scriptures do whether contained in the Scriptures or not For who will undertake that God could not have preserved Christianity without either Scriptures or new revelations And therefore hee chose the way of writing not as of absolute necessity but as of incomparable advantage If therefore God might have obliged man to believe any thing not delivered by writing whether hee hath or not will remain questionable supposing the Scriptures to be the Word of God upon the ground aforesaid Besides there are many things so manifest in the Scriptures that they can indure no dispute supposing the Scriptures to be the Word of God Many things are every day cleared more and more by applying the knowledg