of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
that all are baptized infants the recognisance of our Christianity then received cannot be made to so good purpose as limiting the solemnity thereof to the Bishops own hands I could say the same of Ordination and would say the same if I did finde any irreprovable custom for Priests to ordain The Canon of Ancyra I have expounded otherwise and Eutychius his relation hath been rejected for a fable elswhere I finde by unanswerable arguments that the consent of the Church made Ordinations good which for the act of those by whom they were solemnized were utterly void The case of Ischyras and the Meletians is famous Pretending to have been made Priest by Coluthus a Schismatick Bishop under Meletus by the Council which Hosius was at hee is made a Lay-man with the rest of the Meletians And upon this account Athanasius Apolog. II. insists that there could be no sacrilege committed in breaking his Chalice because there is neither Consecration nor Church among Schismaticks Yet were these Ordinations admitted for good by the Council of Nicaea provided they stood to the Order of it Therefore Athanasius excepts further that Meletius did not give up Ischyras his name in the list of his Clergy The same had been the case of the Donatists had they been admitted by the Church every one in his order as I said Melchiades Pope was content they should be The same is the case which Leo I resolves Rusticns Bishop of Narbonne in Epist XCII cap. II. allowing those Ordinations to stand good upon certain terms which of themselves were void If it could appear that the Church did at the first accept for Bishops of Alexandria whomsoever XII Presbyters of his Church should install I would conclude him no less Bishop by the consent of his suffragans whom the Priests advancing to the higher Throne had set over themselves then had three of them consecrated him by imposition of hands But finding that a fable and no other instances alleged upon any good ground I conclude S. Jerome and S. Chrysostomes credit unquestionable witnessing no more than they might see and affirming the Power of Ordaining to be the Bishops peculiar as indeed most concerning the state of his Church It is said that Novatus Presbyter of the Church of Carthage made Felicissimus Deacon of that Church S. Cypriane Epist XLIX But it is said also that hee made Novatianus Bishop of Rome Both by the hands of his Faction whose names you have there Epist LV. It is said that Eustathius being removed from the Sea of Antiochia in the year CCCXXVIII Paulinus who was not made Bishop there till CCCLXII governed the Church there with his fellow Presbyters As also when Meletius was set asidea while after did Flavianus and Diodorus Theodoret Eccl. Hist I. 21. II. 28. IV. 12 14. Surely having Catholick Bishops on all sides they might govern the widowhood of the Church without medling with the Bishops peculiar It is said that Apollinaris was made Bishop of Laodiâ—â—a by a part of the Clergy and people and by him Vitalis Bishop of the party which he had gained at Antiochia Theodoret V. 3. that the Novatians had their Churches in Constantinople and the adjacent Provinces yet never were headed by any Bishop that fell from the Church and therefore made themselves all Ministers As if Apollinaris could not as well finde Bishops to ordain him bearing up the party that chose him as Audius in Epiphanius Haer. LXX found a Bishop as ready as himself to fall from the Church and to make him a Bishop As if the Novatians being in likelyhood planted from Rome could not have their Bishops ordained by their party there Câ—rtainly it is a desperate attempt to perswade us that in the time of Gregory of Tours any Priest should ordain as Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne because hee reporteth Hist V. 5. that one of them being chosen by a party of the Clergy and people kept possession for above XX years For pretending that the neighbor Bishops did him wronâ— in not consecrating him hee might by favor at Court hold the possession which hee had got not medling with imposition of hands But the Christianity of Scotland makes a great noise even during those times when it cannot be made to appear that any Scots dwelt in Scotland Which makes mee mervail that this objection should be sound in the Preface to the X English Histories For that the relations of Hector Boise or John Maire or Buchanan as ignorant as his predecessors though in better Latine should be swallowed by those that could not judg though it had been against their interest it had not been strange But that a man of such skill in all antiquiâ—ies should repeat an ungrounded relation of certain Priests called Câ—ldâ—i that â—aâ—e their own Bishops without any mark of historical truth upon it is an argument of more will than skill to do â—ischief in the Church But after Christianity was planted as well among the Picts as the Scots in Scotland by S. Columb it is argued that the Bishops of Duresme and oâ—hers in England that sprung from that plantation were made by Priests onely of S. Columbs Monastery in his Island Which men of learning would not do if common sense could persuade them not to imploy their learning to make men believe that it is not light at noon S. Columb himself is condemned by the Bishops of Ireland of S. Patricks plantation to Penance for having a hand in bloud as you may see by the Collections already quoted A Bishops Sea is planted in the Island where hee builds his Monastery Shall wee imagine S. Columb made him a Bishop who lived and died a Priest and an Abbot or the Bishops that sent S. Columb upon this worthy imployment for an abatement or commutation of his Penance It was the time when S. Kentigerne his good friend went to Rome to clear himself that hee was made but by one Bishop as his life relateth Is there any age in which it can be said that there was Christianity among the Scots and not Bishops unless it be the time of Buchanans fables And therefore though as Bede saith that Monastery ruled even the Bishops for the reverence of their learning and holiness Yet for the authority of Ecclesiastical proceedings there is no doubt to be made that such things must come from the Bishops though there is no mention of thâ—m because neither Bede nor any soul could think there would ever be any man so extravagant as to question it Yet that learned Preface argueth that certainly the Culdei in Scotland had the Power of making their Bishop or Bishops from this beginning and that they held it till Turgot was made Bishop of S. Andrews MCVIII That Ninianus Bishop of Galloway was no otherwise made because Plecthelm was ordained upon a new account afterwards which certainly can be imputed to no other reason than this That Wine Bishop of Winchester in Bede III. 28. was the onely regularly ordained Bishop of
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
Samaria mentioned Acts IX 31. where the Harvest was lesse though somewhat elder yet not more considerable whither as Elders of the whole Church that is Bishops or as Elders of the Church of Jerusalem that is Priests supposing the same Order promiscuously called Bishops and Presbyters which I never doubted and since hath been largely and learnedly proved will scarce be decided by these Texts and the interesse of the Church will be secure though it be not decided For when the deputation of the Church of Antiochia is addressed to the Apostles and these Elders when they assemble to consider of it when the answer containing the decree goes forth in their name Act. XV. 2 4. 16 23. It is still the decree of the Princes and Elders of the Israel of God whether you take them for Elders of the Church of Jerusalem or Bishops of the whole Church Nor is the case much otherwise when Paul and his companions consult with Iames and the Elders almost about the same businesse Act. XXI 18. though of the twelve it seems there was none then left at Jerusalem but James whom for the many marks which the Scriptures give us that his care was appropriated though his power no way confined to that Church the Church calleth Bishop of Jerusalem and of those Presbyters many were either setled in or dispersed to other functions as those whom first we read of in the Church of Antiochia must have have been of that quality Act. XIII 1. no lesse then Barâ—abas and Silas Act. IX 27. XI 22-26 XV. 22. But is there any man that can pick out of all this any maner of pretense for the equality of whether Governors or Ministers of the Church for the concurrence of Lay Elders to the Acts of their Government For the concurrence of the people there may be some pretense because they are present at passing the decree and the leter that bears it goes in their name Act. XV. 4. 23. And because the choice of Matthias and of the seven proceeds upon upon their allowance and nomination of the persons Act. I. 20-23 XVI 3-6 But that therefore the cheif interess should be in the people is an imagination too brutish Cannot the Apostles finding themselves obliged to ordain persons so and so qualified for such and such offices in the Church appeal to the people whom they acknowledge so and so qualified Cannot S. Paul afterwards provide That no man should blame them in dispensing the Power which they are trusted with 2 Cor. VIII 20. but a consequence must thereupon be inferred against themselves that they are commanded by God to referre things concerning the salvation of Gods people in generall as the power of an Apostle the order of Deacon the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem to the temerity and giddinesse of the people When it is evident in the Text that the people are neither left to themselves whither to proceed or not nor to proceed but within bounds limited so that proceeding within those bounds â—hey could not prejudice the Apostles interess without they were to be restrained As for the mater of Faith determined at Jerusalem is any man so litle a Christian as to doubt whether it obliged them whom it concerned or whether by virtue of that act Those that so readily admitted it Act. XVI 4. did not The whole interess of the people consequent to this proceeding of the Apostles consists in being reasonably satisfied of mater of fact concerning persons and causes to be justiced by the Apostles and their successors in the Church And can no more argue the People to be chief in the Church then the triall by Juries can argue England to be no Monarchy Which interesse when it is shamefully abused to the dishonour of Christianity I say not I would have it taken away as in some â—laces perhaps it is but I say he that would not have the satisfaction which they may demand limited by certain bounds with force of Law that it may not be so abused any more can neither pretend to be reasonable nor Christian But that the people of one Church should do an act which must oblige other Churches is a thing so gross that they who allow their Christians the freedom to be tied to nothing but what themselves please do by consequence allowing others the same destroy all principles and grounds of one Catholick Church which having proved as largely as my design admits I remit those who may pretend themselves unsatisfieâ— in this point to void me these grounds before they claim of me that which cannot stand with the truth of them But the due interess of the people being thus satisfied and their pretended interess by the same means excluded what becomes of the Lay Elders interess upon their account For Lay Elders can be no more then the Foremen of the People to act that interess which they challenge to their due advantage And in this quality I have granted elsewere and cannot repent me of that opinion that in some parts of the Western Church some of the chief of the People that is that were not of the Clergy did concur to the acts of the Church in behalf of the People and of their Interess And in this quality Blondel the most learned of Presbyterians claims the Lay Elders of Gâ—nâ—va to be receivable Which as he knew very well and all his party will own to be utterly inconsistent with the meaning and intent of them who first brought them in at Geneva So will it both cut of all pretense for them that is derived from any other ground and leave the claim also to be limited by that which the preservation of the whole Church and the unity thereof will require In the mean time the Order of Bishops and the superiority thereof above the order of Priests stands exemplified in the person of S. Iames the brother of our Lord by so ancient testimonies concurring with such circumstances of Scripture marked out Bishop of Jerusalem whither one of the twelve or noâ— In that indeed the reports of the ancients are not reconcileable But if not why should S. Paul be so careful to protest that he received not his authority from him no more then from S. Peter and S. Iohn Gal. I. 18. 19. II. 9. 12. Could there be any question of receiving his authority from any but those of the Twelve Therefore and for other reasons elsewhere alleged I count it as shouldred by most probâ—bilities so a subject to least difficulty to believe him to be Iames the Son of Alphoeus as having nothing of consequence to answer but why Hegâ—sippus writing so soon after the Apostles hath not remembred it But of that let each man think as he finds most reasonable Those testimonies of antiquity which expound those circumstances of Scripture which mark him out for the head of that Church do not discharge him from the care of other Churches especially of the circumcision which perhaps by his care together with
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
is to determine controversies of Faith And what obligation that determination produceth Traditions of the Apostles oblige the present Church as the reasons of them continue or not Instances in our Lords Passeover and Eucharist Penance under the Apostles and afterwards S. Pauls vail eaâ—ing blood and things offered to Idols The power of the Church in limiting these Traditions 178 CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sâ—fficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity p. 163 CHAP. XXVI What is to add to Gods Law What to adde to the Apocalypse S. Pauls Anathema The Beraeans S. Johns Gospel sufficient to make one believe and the Scriptures the man of God perfect How the Law giveth light and Christians are taught by God How Idolatry is said not to be commanded by God 168 CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jewes Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiours and the Pillar of truth inferre it not 175 CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the sufficiencie 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â—rnesse of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the termes which they use The limitations of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith 181 CHAP. XXXII Answer to an Objection that choice of Religion becomes difficult upon these terms This resolution is for the Interest of the Reformation Those that make the Church Infallible cannot those that make the Scriptures â—â—ear â—nd sufficient may own Tradition for evidence to determine the meaning of the Scriptures and controversies of Faith The Interest of the Church of England The pretense of Rushworthes Dialogues that we have no unquestionable Scripture and that tâ—e Tradition of the Church never changes 192 CHAP. XXXI That the Scriptures which wee have are unquestionable That mistakes in Copying are not considerable to the sense and effect of them The meaning of the Hebrew and Greek even of the Prophets determinable to the deciding of Controversies How Religion delivered by Tradition becomes subject to be corrupted 198 CHAP. XXXIV The dispute concerning the Canon of Scripture and the translations thereof in two Questions There can be no Tradition for those books that were written since Prophesie ceased Wherein the excellence of them above other books lies The chiâ—fe objections against them are questionâ—ble In those parcels of the New Testament that have been questioned the case is not the same The sense of the Church 207 CHAP. XXXIII Onely the Originall Copy can be Authentick But the truth thereof may as well be found in the translations of the Old Testament as in the Jewes Copies The Jewes have not falsified them of malice The points come neither from Moses nor Esdras but from the Talmud Iewes 218 CHAP. XXXIV Of the ancientest Translations of the Bible into Greek first With the Authors and authority of the same Then into the Chaldee Syriack and Latine Exceptions against the Greek and the Samaritane Pentateuch They are helps never thelesse to assure the true reading of the Scriptures though with other Copies whether Jewish or Christian Though the Vulgar Latine were better than the present Greek yet must both depend upon the Original Greek of the New Testament No danger to Christianity by the differences remaining in the Bible 224 The CONTENTS of the second Book CHAP. I. TWo parts of that which remains How the dispute concerning the Holy Trinity with Socinus belongs to the first The Question of justification by Faith alone The Opinion of Socinus concerning the whole Covenant of Grace The opinion of those who make justifying Faith the knowledge of a mans Predestination opposite to it in the other extream The difference between it and that of the Antinomians That there are mean Opinions p. 1 CHAP. II. Evidence what is the condition of the Covenant of Grace The contract of Baptism The promise of the Holy Ghost annexed to Christs not to Johns Baptism Those are made Christs Disciples as Christians that take up his Cross in Baptism The effects of Baptism according to the Apostles 5 CHAP. III. The exhortations of the Apostles that are drawn from the patterns of the Old Testament suppose the same How the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament are the same how not the same How the new Testament and the New Covenant are both one The free-will of man acteth the same part in dealing about the New-Covenant as about the Old The Gospel a Law 12 CHAP. IV. The consent of the whole Church evidenced by the custome of catechising By the opinion thereof concerning the salvation of those that delayed their Baptism By the rites and Ceremonies of Baptism Why no Penance for sins before but after Baptism The doctrine of the Church of England evident in this case 17 CHAP. V. The Preaching of our Lord and his Apostles evidenceth that some act of Mans free choice is the condition which it requireth The correspondence between the Old and New Testament inferreth the same So do the errors of Socinians and Antinomians concerning the necessity of Baptism Objections deferred 23 CHAP. VI. Justifying faith sometimes consists in believing the truth Sometimes in trust in God grounded upon the truth Sometimes in Christianity that is in imbracing and professing it And that in the Fathers as well as in the Scriptures Of the informed and formed Faith of the Schools 30 CHAP. VII The last signification of Faith is properly justifying Faith The first by a Metonymy of the cause The second of the effect Those that are not justified do truly believe The trust of a Christian presupposeth him to be justified All the promises of the Gospel become due at once by the Covenant of Grace That to believe that we are Elect or justified is not justifying faith 37 CHAP. VIII The objection from S. Paul We are not justifyed by the Law nor by Works but by Grace and by Faith Not meant of the Gospel and the works that suppose it The question that S. Paul speakes to is of the Law of Moses and the workes of it He sets those workes in the same rank with the works of the Gentiles by the light of nature The civil and outward works of the Law may be done by Gentiles How the Law is a Pedagogue to Christ 43 CHAP. IX Of the Faith and Justification of Abraham and the Patriarkes according to the Apostles
Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it 125 CHAP. XV. Another opinion admiâ—ting the ground of Lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Continence and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bound of Ecclesiastical Power in Mariage upon these grounds 134 CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Governours and Ministers of the Church Vpon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standath in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence for the Hierarchy which it yeeldeth Of those Scriptures which seem â—o speake of Presbyteries or Congregations 145 CHAP. XVII The power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Elders 152 CHAP. XVIII The Apostlet all of equall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-eminence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it 161 CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The business 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 168 CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminence of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Niâ—aea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the Superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth 175 CHAP. XXI Of the times of Gods service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of mâ—ats and measure of Fasting Of keeping of our Lords Birth-day and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service 190 CHAP. XXII The people of God tied to build Synâ—gogues though not by the leter of the Law The Church to provide Churches though the Scripture command it not Prescribing the form of Gods publick service is not quenching the Spirit The Psalter is prescribed the Church for Gods Praises The Scriptures prescribed to be read in the Church The order of reading them to be prescribed by the Church 203 CHAP. XXIII The consecration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it The Lords Prayer prescribed in all Services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the formes of other Offices 211 CHAP. XXIV The service of God prescribed to be in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kinds commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse 217 CHAP. XXV Prayer the more principall Office of Gods service then Preaching Preaching neither Gods word nor the meanes of salvation unlesse limited to the Faith of Gods Church What the edification of the Church by preaching further requires The Order for divine service according to the course of the Church of England According to the custome of the universal Church 273 CHAP. XXV Idolatry presupposeth an imâ—gination that there is more Gods then one Objections out of the Scripture that it is the worship of the true God under an Image the Original of worshipping the elements of the world The Devill And Images Of the Idolatry of Magicians and of the Gnosticks What Idolatry the cases of Aaron and Jeroboam involve Of the Idolatries practised under the Kings and Judges in answer to objections 282 CHAP. XXVI The place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God 302 CHAP. XXVII The Souls of the Fathers were not in the Devils Power till Christ Though the Old Testament declare not their estate Of Samuels soul The soul of our Lord Christ parting from his body went with the Thiefe to Paradise Of his triumph over the powers of darknesse Prayer for the dead signifieth â—o delivering of souls out of Purgatory The Covenant of Grace requires imperfect happinesse before the generall judgement Of forgivenesse in the world to come and paying the utmost farthing 310 CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of souls before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Vâ—rge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soul during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church 325 CHAP. XXIX The ground upon which Ceremonies are to be used in the service of the Church Instances out of the Scriptures and Tradition of the Apostles Of the equivocation of the word Sacrament in the Fathers The reason of a Sacrament in Baptism and the Eucharist In extream Unction In Mariage In Confirmation Ordination and Penance 340 CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of Prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandment prohibiteth or alloweth The second Council of Nicaea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshipping of Images 350 CHAP. XXXI The ground for Monastical life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it
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 is manifest that the authority which S. Paul giveth Timothy and Titus as his Epistles to them evidence is respective to the Churches of Ephesus and Creet or at the most those Churches which resorted to them Yet are they inabled thereby to constitute Bishops for the service of the said Churches as also their Deacons and to govern the same 1 Tim. II. 5. Titus I. 6-9 The Elders of the Church which S. Paul sent for to Ephesus had authority respective to the Church there meant but received from S. Paul as his directions and exhortations intimate Acts XX. 17 28-21 So did the Elders which hee and Barnabas ordained in the Churches Acts XIV 28. The like wee finde in the Churches of the Jewes Heb. XIII 7 17. James V. 14. 1 Pet. V. 1-5 and of the Thessalonians and Philippians 1 Thess V. 12 13. Phil. I. 1. And the seven Churches of Asia have their seven Angels which the Epistles which the Spirit directs S. John to write them do show that they were to acknowledge his authority Apoc. I. 20. II. III. So as long as the Scriptures last it is evident that there was a common authority whether derived from or concurrent with the authority of the Apostles which must needs make the Church one Body during that time whatsoever privilege can be challenged on behalf of the people and their concurrence to the acts either of each particular Church or of the whole And for the continuance of this authority after the Apostles I see no cause why I should seek farr for evidence It shall susfice mee to allege the Heads of the Churches of Rome Alexandira Antiochia and Jerusalem recorded by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical Histories from the time of the Apostles Adding thereunto thereunto the protestations of Irenaeus III. 3. that hee could reckon those rhat received their authority from the Apostles in all Churches though for brevities sake hee insist onely in the Church of Rome And of Tertullian de Praescript cap. XXXII who also allegeth the very Chaires which the Apostles sate upon possessed by those that succeeded them in his time as well as the Originals of those Epistles which they sent to such Churches extant in his time I will also remember S. Augustine Epistolâ CLXV and Optatus lib. II. alleging the same succession in the Church of Rome to confound the Donatists with for departing from the comminion thereof and of all Churches that then communicated with it For what will any man in his right senses say to this That this authority came not from the Apostles Or that it argues every one of these Churches to be a Body by it self but not all of them to make one Body which is the Catholick Church Hee that sayes this must answer Irenaeus alleging for a reason why hee instances onely in the Church of Rome Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique sideles For to this Church it is necessary that all Churches that is the Christians that are on all sides should resort because of the more powerfull principality What is the reason why it is enough for Irenaeus to instance in the Church of Rome but this That all Churches do communicate with the Church of Rome when they resort to Rome and all resort thither because it is the sear of the Empire So that which is said of the Faith of the Church of Rome is said of the Faith of all Churches And potentior principalitas is not command of the Church over other Churches but the power of the Empire which forces the Christians of all sides to resort to Rome Again the cause of the Church against the Donarists stands upon this ground that the Church of Rome which the Churches of Africk did communicate with communicated with all Churches besides those of Africk But that Church of Rome which the Donatists communicated with for they also had set up a Church of their own at Rome the rest of the Church did not communicate with How this came to passe you may see by the cause of the Novatians being the same in effect with that of the Donatists By the IV Canon of Nicaea it is provided that every Bishop be made by all the Bishops of the Province some of them as many as can meeting the rest allowing the proceedings under their hand This provision might be made when there were Churches in all Cities of all Provinces but the I Canon of the Apostles onely requireth that a Bishop be ordained by two or three Bishops For when Christianity was thinner sowed if two or three should take the care of providing a Pastor for a Church that was void their proceeding was not like to be disowned by the rest of the neighbouring Churches nor in particular by that of the chief City to which the Cities of the rest resorted for justice The Churches of these chief Cities holding intelligence correspondence and communion with other Churches of other principal Cities those Churches which they owned together with their Rulers or whosoever they were that acted on behalf of them must needs be owned by them in the same unity and correspondence The Bishop of Rome being dead while the question depended whether those that had fallen away in the persecution of Decius should be readmitted to communion or not And the neighbour Bishops being assembled sixteen of them ordain Cornelius three of them Novatianus who stood strictly upon rejecting them whatsoever satisfaction they tendered the Church Whether of these should be received was for a time questionable especially in the Church of Antiochia and those Churches which adheered to it Untill by the intercession of Dionysius of Alexandria they were induced to admit of Cornelius without dispute All this and much more you have in Eusebius Eccl. Hist VI. 42-46 Which being done there remained no further question that those who held with Cornelius were to be admitted those that held with Novatianus remaining excommunicate Whereby it appeares that by the communication which passed between the greatest Churches and the adherence of the lesse unto them whatsoever Church communicated with any Church communicated with the whole And in what quality soever a man was known in his own Church in the same hee was acknowledged by all Churches And therefore the succession of the Rulers of any Church from the Apostles is enough to evidence the unity of the Catholick Church as a visible Corporation consisting of all Churches I must not here omit to allege the authority of Councils and to maintain the right and power of holding them and the obligation which the decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same authority of the Apostles Which if I do there can no further question remain whether the Church was founded for a Corporation by our Lord and his Apostles when wee see the parts ruled by the acts of the whole That is to say
is Soveraign inact it By consequence must needs deny that any Act of the Apostles could be Law to the Church whose office was onely to publish the newes of the coming and rising again of Christ and to induce men to submit themselves to his kingdome of the world to come Much lesse can there be any Power to give Lawes to the Church but that which is in the Soveraigne of each State which therefore when it is Christian is called the Church of such a Kingdome Though hee acknowledge also that before the Empire was Christian the Body of Christians in every City is called in the Scriptures the Church of such or such a City pag. 275 But denying that there can be upon earth any such universal Church as all Christians are tied to obey because they are lyable to other Powers of this world according to the States of which they are pag. 248. and before pag. 206. As for the Power of bunding and loosing very properly hee understands it to be a consequence of the Apostles commission to baptize unto forgivenesse of sins But so that supposing they have nothing to do either to loose them that repent not or to binde them that do and that no mans repentance is visible but by our outward signes there must be some Power to judge of the truth of those fignes because they may be counterfeit And this Power as it is expresly given by our Lord to the Church Mat. XVIII 16. when hee saith Tell the Church So doth S. Paul 1 Cor. V. 11 12 and 3 4 5. acknowledge the power of casting out the incestuous persons and other finners to be in the Congregation reserving to himself onely the pronouncing of the sentence Supposing this Church to be now the Soveraign Power that representeth the people but when S. Paul writ the Body of Christians in such or such a City pag. 275. In like maner the appointing of Persons either to officiate the Service of God or to wait upon the necessities of the Church hee also gives unto the Church that is then to the respective Bodies of Christians but now to the Soveraign Power into which all Rights of the People resolve by the establishment of it But the consecrating of them by Imposition of hands as to the Apostles for their time so to the worlds end to their Successors For thus were Maâ—thias Paul and Barnabas made Apostles Act. I. 15 23. XIV 1 2 3. XIV 14. Thus the seven Deacons thus the Elders of Churches were constituted Acts VI. 3. XIV 23. the Congregation chusing the Apostles declaring the choice as in binding and loosing As for the maintenance of Persons thus appointed it is no marvail if hee make it meer almes and benevolence without any Law of God to make the purses of Christians lyable to it who acknowledgeth not Christianity to be any Law For how shall hee be bound to contribute towards the maintenance of such persons that is not bound to be a Christian But that Tithes under the Law were due onely by the Civil Power which God had upon the people having made God their Soveraign by their Covenant with him in which right Moses and Aaeron and the High Priests that succeeded him were but his Lieutenants so that when this Power was translated and settled upon their Kings it held meerly by their sufferance this is an imagination that no mans brain ever teemed with till now And truly in the point of giving Law to the Church by determining Controversies of Faith and by interpreting difficulties of Scripture call it what you please as also by deciding that which becomes questionable in any thing that concerns the community of Christians It had been a necessary consequence of this opinion that as hee owneth the Soveraign Powers right to decree so hee should assign the Persons thereby appointed for the Church a Right to declare publish or pronounce the same as in Excommunicating and Ordaining hee doth For which hee hath found no ground no pretense in the Scriptures Besides whereas by the Act of the Apostles laying a burden upon believers Acts XV. 28. and by the practice of their successors practising the holding of Councils which common sense would make ridiculous if they had no effect upon the Church hee is convinced to acknowledge that they were able to binde themselves though not the Church It will be impossible for him to render a reason either why this power should cease or how it should continue when the Soveraign Power becomes Christian and all right in the Church is resolved into it I must not leave this point before I have taken notice of one presumption wherein both these Authors seem to agree For the Leviathan in several places pag. 285 286 282 205 206 322. taketh for granted that there is no Law in the world but the Law of Nature and the Civil Lawes of Commonwealths And therefore that hee which makes Ecclesiastical Power not to depend upon the Civil must indow it both with right and means to constrain men to obey it and thereupon inferrs all the inconvenience which hee so much aggravates That then all Civil Power must of necessity be swallowed up and resolved into the Power of the Church in as much as all Christians even Soveraignes are members of it Which to avoid it is necessary to grant that the Church is nothing else but a Christian Commonwealth and the Clergy ministers of the Soveraign Power deriving all their authority from it pag. 209 249 296. In like maner the first book de Synedriis Ebraeorum in defining Excommunication pag. 105. takes it for granted that those who challenge the power of it in behalf of the Church would have the Civil estate and condition of him that is excommunicate in regard of his reputation of freedom changed and abated by it Which must needs inferre the Church to be indowed with such a power as is able by outward force to constrain obedience For otherwise the estate of no man that is protected in all right by the Civil Power could be changed or abated by it Accordingly in several places hee presumes that those who maintain the Power of the Church and the right of Excommunicating which is a prime part of it to stand by Gods Law are obliged by consequence to maintain the Power of the Church in maters of the world in Ordine ad spiritualia And hereupon follow the reasons whereby these Authors have disputed the one à priori that this constitution of the Church is destructive to the peace and safety of all States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes in as much as a Power not depending upon them may lawfully be used against them by giving the people a title of executing the commands of it by force The other à posteriori from the practice of all Christian States Kingdomes and Commonwealthes Who by limiting the exercise and effect of all kindes of acts which the Church hath done or pretended to inforce by Excommunication have
in Horeb. Then repeating the summe of what they had seen since their coming out of Aegypt as to move them to imbrace Gods Covenant Wherefore saith hee yee shall observe the termes of this Covenant and do them that yee may prosper in whatsoever you do And so contesting the whole Assembly that they and their posterity must by transgressing come under the curse which it is inacted with thus expresses the summe of it That hee may settle thee to himself for a people and hee be thy God as hee hath said to thee and as hee hath sworn to Abraham Isaac and Jacob thy Fathers To whom hee had expresly sworn to give the Land of Promise and therefore so determined the expresse sense and intent of being their God For to expound what it means for them to have God for their God and hee them for his people it followes that if any of them return from the Lord to the Gods of the Aegyptians and other Nations they shall incurre the curse which the Covenant is inacted with that the Land being turned into salt and brimstone shall not be to be sown nor spring nor grasse grow but be like Sodome and Gomorra and Seboim which the Lord overthrew in his wrath Hereupon hee begins the XXX Chapter thus And it shall come to passe that when all these things are lefallen tâ—â—e and thou shalt call them to minde among all Nations to which God shall have driven thee and return to the Lord thy God And the rest whereby God promises that hee will be intreated of his people and turn the said curses from them upon their enemies Remitting plainly him that will understand what those are to that which went afore from cap. XXVI 16 XXVII XXVIII XXIX which hee that will peruse may trust his own senses whether they speak of life everlasting or of the Land of Promise And indeed the whole book of Deuteronomy containing nothing else but the repetition and continuation of what was most necessary to introduce and perswâ—de this renewing of the Covenant whether wee judge of the premises by the conclusion or of the conclusion by the premises wee shall â—inde no more thâ—n what I have said Now the whole XXV of Leviticus being nothing else but an exhortation and warning to keep the Law propounded before the camp removed from Mount Sinai as you have it XXVI 46 Had any such thing as eternal life been covenanted for of necessity the arguments there used must have been drawn from thence But you shall finde no more than concernes the Land of Promise The effect of this reason is not to argue a negative from Scripture That is to say this is not recorded in the Scripture not in this or that part of the Scripture therefore not true But to argue from the common reason of all men and the visible nature of the businesse then in hand that what was not then expressed for a condition of that Covenant which is related to have been struck between God and the Israelites cannot be presumed to have been an expresse condition of it For by interpretation from not onely the conversation of the Fathers but the doctrine of the Prophets and the preaching of the Gospel I grant that it is the principal intent which the Law intimateth though not expresseth One particular precept of the Law I must not omit It is that of Lev. V. 1-5 which appointeth the same sacrifice to be offered for legal uncleannesse as for perjury Now it is to be considered that legal uncleannesse is not a thing forbidden by the Law but is contracted by observing the Law as Tobits uncleannesse which made him lye out of the house and occasioned his blindenesse by burying the dead Tobit III. 11. being indeed an outward accident coming to passe without any inclination of mans will to it and therefore not imputable If therefore the same means of expiating that which is not forbidden by the Law expiate such a sin as perjury let any man understand how by this Law expiation is made for the guilt of perjury whereby every Christian believes hee becomes lyable to everlasting death when by the same expiation is made not for sinne but for a legal incapacity of conversing with Gods people or coming to the Tabernacle Another is that of Prayer negatively For who will believe that the spiritual reward of everlasting life is promised by the Covenant of the Law which does not so much as command the spiritual service of Prayer as the Jewes themselves observe Maimoni in the beginning of the Titles of Prayer and Blessings that Prayer is commanded onely by the precept of the Law Deut. VI. 13. X. 20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him The Lord thy God shalt thou fear and him serve And those Blessings in which so much of their Religion consists onely by Deut. VIII 10. And when thou hast eaten and art full then shalt thou blesse the Lord thy God for the good Land which hee hath given thee Out of these texts their Elders they say have taken occasion to prescribe the kindes and measure and circumstances of their Prayers and Blessings And truly when there is so much in the Law of their Festivals and Sabbaths and Sacrifices and so little of the spiritual duties which God is to be served with and was served with even under the Law It is impossible to give a reason of it unlesse wee say that as the Gospel was yet to be a secret to the spiritual service of God which under it was to be required was not under the Law to be covenanted for that is expressed And here I am not to forget the Sect of Sadducees which though it denyed the reward after death yet notwithstanding was not onely tolerated among the Jewes but also in such Power that I have showed in another place that during the time mentioned by the Acts of the Apostles it had authority in all publick maters of the Nation under the Romanes For if they that denied the Resurrection expresly renounced the Law by renouncing the expresse condition of it it will be impossible to say how they that renounced the Law should manage that Power of governing their own people by the Law which was reserved to the Nation by the Romanes Indeed when Idolatry prevailed the precepts which punished that sinne by death of necessity were superâ—eded for the time But when after the Captivity some denied the life to come others expected it from the literal and carnal observation of the Law both maintaining themselves under the Law and by it it might be signified by the Law as our Savior proves the Resurrection Mat. XXII 23. Mar. XII 18. Luc. XX. 27. but had it been covenanted for impudence would not have had wherewith to maintaine the contrary acknowledging the Law And therefore I agree that when our Lord sayes Search the Scriptures for in them yee think yee have eternal life John V. 39. This think is a term of abatement
of the Church can be founded upon the right thereof or derived from it Neither is it otherwise with the Prophetical Office The authority whereof as I have showed was of divine right under the Law as depending immediately upon the will of God that raised them up and gave them authority by those evidences which his own Law had made legal And this that hee might tye his people the more strongly by their ministery and by the evidence of his presence among them to observe his Law And yet in as much as all Christians must believe them fore-runners of Christ sent to give notice of his coming by such meanes as God that sent him thought fit so that hee by his Office is the chief Prophet to whom the Father reserved the full declaration of his will and pleasure concerning the alliance hee intended to hold with men of necessity their office was to expire in him neither can it remaine in the Church further than hee by a new act may appear to have appointed I do not here make any doubt that S. Paul argued very well when hee said 1 Cor. IX 13 14. Know yee not that they which work holy things eat of the holy That they who wait upon the Altar take part with the Altar So also hath God appointed them that bring newes of the Gospel to live of the Gospel But hee that will understand this argument must make up the comparison by completing the correspondence between the bringing of souls to Christ by preaching the Gospel and the sacrificing of living creatures to God by executing the Law This correspondence the Apostle himself hath delared to our hands Rom. XV. 15 16. Because of the grace given mee of God saith hee that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles exercising the sacred function of preaching the Gospel of God that the oblation of the Gentiles may be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost And Phil. II. 17. Nay though I be poured forth upon the sacrifice and ministery of your Faith I rejoyce and that joyntly with you all Where it appeareth that by submitting to the Gospel men become a sacrifice to God in as much as they dye to the world and that they who bring them to Christianity are the Priests that offer this sacrifice And by this Priesthood it is that the Apostle challengeth a right of living upon preaching the Gospel as the Priests lived by attending upon the sacrifices of the Law Which if it be true then is the Apostles office that Priesthood under the Gospel which was to remaine by the correspondence thereof with the Law and thereforâ— cannot derive any Title from the Levitical Priesthood which it maketh void As for the Office of Prophets under the Gospel it is plain by S. Pauls Epistles that it pleased God among other miraculous Graces of the Holy Ghost whereby hee evidenced his presence in the Church to stirre up Prophets in those Primitive Churches by whom besides they might be instructed in the more solid understanding of their Christianity as may appear in particular by S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV Which being supposed can any man imagine that the Office of those Prophets and the authority which it importeth can be derived from the Prophets under the Law whose Office expired in Christ His act it must be to give authority to Prophets under the Gospel and since wee have showed that the chief authority which hee left in the Church was left with his Apostles it followeth by consequence which by other Scriptures in another place I have showed to have been true that the Apostles by their Office were the chief Prophets of the Church Though as for the continuance of the gift of Prophesie under the Gospel there is no promise recorded as under the Law there is So neither any precept requiring obedience to their Office as then I have showed there was In fine God by Christ designed to raise up children to Abraham which are the new Israel according to the Spirit Hee hath given the Apostles and Disciples of our Lord that authority over them which may answer the power of the Patriarchs and Elders of his ancient people under Moses Hee hath incorporated into their Office under the Gospel the authority both of Priests and Prophets under the Law which both were to cease with the Law Therefore wee are not to derive any Poweâ— of the Church from the rights of the Priesthood under the Law not to argue that the Church hath no right to that Power which the Priesthood as then was not seised of But whatsoever power was in the Prinees of Tribes and their inferiors in the Elders and Judges of Israel for the civil Government of that people under Moses the same wee must inferre to have been in the Apostles and Disciples of Christ and by consequence in them to whom they may appeare to have committed any part of it for the government of the Church under our Lord Christ Saving the difference which the condition whereupon either people are gathered into one Society importeth Which is in them the possession of the Land of Promise upon the observation of the Law in us the Kingdome of heaven upon the Faith of Christ And therefore in them inferreth temporal Power in disposing of causes and things of this world in these onely the Power of directing in spiritual maters wherein the Church by the Covenant of Grace doth communicate This opinion may seem to some man not to agree with the doctrine of the ancientest Fathers who do many times argue what order ought to be held in the Church from that which the Law provided for the Levitical Priesthood As Clemens Ep. ad Corinthios from the order which the Law had prescribed for the Sacrifices prescribed by it argueth that the like ought to be kept in the Church pag. 53. And S. Cyprian that as Eleazar was consecrated High Priest by Moses before the Congregation of the People so ought Ordinations to be celebrated before the Assembly of the Church Which kinde of argument seems to have no force unlesse wee derive the Offices of the Church from the Levitical Priesthood Together with abundance of passages to the same purpose whereof it shall be enough to have produced these for an example But this kinde of argument is easily stopped by one instance For it is manifest that the like argument of instruction or exhortation to those that claime by and under the Apostles may be drawn from divers passages of the ancient Scriptures wherein the Prophets of the Law are exhorted to do or reproved for neglecting their Office And yet no man can go about to derive the right of their authority from the Prophets Office by the Law of Moses And then it is easily answered that nothing hinders the same reason that appeares in the Ordinances of the Levitical Priesthood to be of evident consequence in the ordering of Gods Church Not because the order of the Church depends upon
And therefore as every Church is a Body by it self and all Churches notwithstanding bound to make one Body by visible communion one with another which Body is the Catholick Church So is this common stock of the Church provided for the maintenance first of that Church whose it is then of the whole Church by defraying the charge of those correspondences whereby the unity thereof is intertained In the place afore-quoted out of my Book of the Right of the Church in a Christian State you shall finde those Scriptures alleged which speak of the Collections of other Churches for the maintenance of the Church of Jerusalem the then Mother Church of all Churches And in this Book afore Chap. X. you have evidence that the correspondence between all Churches by which the communion of all was to be maintained was instituted and set on foot by the Apostles You have therefore evidence that such a stock was requisite even in regard of correspondence between several Churches when you see upon what businesse it was spent Whether this correspondence were exercised in holding of Councils or by dayly intercourse and intelligence the case was alwaies the same as at the Council at Ariminum where the Fathers complained that they were detained against their will as to the great charge of them who were to maintaine their Representatives there And if my memory faile not the British Bishops particularly in Sulpitius Severus that their Churches were not able to maintaine them there at the charge which was requisite For Constantine indeed at the Council of Nicaea had furnished not onely the wagons of the Exchequer to convey them to the place but also the greatest part if not their whole charge during the action But his son intending by duresse to constrain them to decree that which hee intended because hee knew that if they decreed it not his authority would be of no more effect to induce the Church to receive it than the Heathen Emperors had been to induce it to renounce Christianity using his Soveraign Power in commanding his subjects to assemble and continue assembled layed for a further burthen and duresse upon them to continue their at their own charge that is at the charge of their Churches I will conclude with a memorable passage of S. Gregory Nazianzens in Julianum I. where hee tells us that among other designes os the Apostate to extinguish Christianity one was to bring the Lawes of the Church into use among the Gentiles as the means to propagate and maintain their Idolatry which was visibly the means to propagate and maintain Christianity Indeed it is a testimony that concerneth all parts of Church Law and evidences all the parts of Ecclesiastical Power that I have insisted upon But because it mentioneth partly the erecting of Hospitals for the correspondence of Christians I have put it here in the last place where I allege the practice of the Church for the corporation of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hee was ready to set up Auditories in stead of Churches in every City and Presidents of higher and lower States readings and expositions of the doctrines of the Gentiles both which compose mens manners and the more abstruse Also in part the forme of Prayers and censuring of sinners according to their measure Of Catechizing also and Baptizing and other things which manifestly belong to the good order that is among us Besides to found Hospitals to intertain strangers and convents of Virgins and Monasteries and the humanity which wee use to the poore Also beside the rest of our order that of leters of mark which wee give to those that need when they travail from Countrey to Countrey Julian believed not that these Orders came from God because hee believed not Christianity Those that can believe as hee did of these Orders why not of Christianity Those Christians whose purses maintained the charge of them would not have been so forward had they thought themselves left free to themselves without obligation from our Lord by his Apostles And to that which hath been said to make evidence of this Law and other Lawes whereby the Church was made a Corporation by the Apostles I will here desire the Reader to adde all that hee shall finde written by Epiphanius in the end of his work against all Heresies concerning the Rules and customs of that one Church which continueth so only by separating from them Perhaps they who can think the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles meer fables because the books were not written by them to whom they are intitled will not believe that Epiphanius would have writ the same things had they not been real and visible CHAP. XVII The Power of Excommunication in the Church is not founded in the Law What argument there is of it in the Old Testament The allegorical sense thereof is argumentative It was not necessary that the Christians should incurre persecution for using the Power of the Keyes and not by virtue of the Law I Am now come to the point principally insisted on for all this is premised for a ground to that contradiction which I must frame to that which hath been said against the Power of Excommunicating in the Church To which insisting upon the premises I say That I am so farr from pretending that right to depend upon the Church by virtue of the Law that I insist expresly that there was no such thing introduced by Moses Law or in force under the Law of Nature in the time of the Patriarchs And not onely admit but as for my Interest demand all that for truth which the first book de Synedriis hath proved at large and saved all them that believe it the pains of doing iâ— again That Excommunication came in force in the Synagogue after the Captivity and in the dispersions of the Jewes when they desiring as their duty was to maintaine Gods Law by which they were to be governed and not having the Power of insticting Penalties requisite to maintaine it as not being inabled by their Soveraignes devised a course that might appear reasonable because necessary upon â—upposition of their own Law and yet lesse presuming upon the Soveraigne Power Which was to devest those that should incurr that forfeit of the privilege of a Jew and to banish him the conversation of his native people either in whole or in part as the penalty was to be measured by the offense And truly I count my self with the world obliged to him that hath imployed so much learning to show it and that it will onely become the wilfulness of them who neither understand the Scriptures themselves nor will learn of them that do to imagine an Ecclesiastical Court distinct from the Secular under the Law in which the Priesthood were Judges And to take paines to show themselves uncapable of truth by seeking to maintain that which hee hath showed to be evidently false But this being granted I do not understand what reason can be imagined why it
the Church provided for the service of God upon supposition of this common Christianity evidently destroyeth what it pretendeth to maintain I leave the case at present for their plea who cannot obtain the consent of the whole if they reform themselves But you see what reason I have to deny that this Reformation consisteth in voiding the obligation of the acts and decrees of the Church For the same reason the authority of Pastors is as visibly derived from the act of the Apostles in primitive Churches as their own authority is visible in the Scriptures And unlesse all Christendom could be cousened or forced at once to admit such an imposture they can be no Churches further than the name in which it is derived from the Law of nature and reason and the liberty left private Christians to dispose of themselves in Ecclesiastical communion where they please For of that liberty neither the Scriptures nor all Christianity since the time of them will yield one example I marvel therefore that S. Pauls commission to Timothy 1 Tim. V. 17. should seem to import no more then a reproof and that at the discretion of him that is reproved whether hee will admit it or return him as good as hee brings For if S. Pauls commission to Timothy extend no further what could hee have done more himself had hee been present And the Apostle injoyning obedience to those who first brought the Gospel and to those who presently ruled those Churches in the same terms Hebr. XIII 7 17. must needs be thought to give the successors their predecessors authority saving the difference observed afore So certain is it which I have advanced in another place that this opinion is not tenable without denying the authority of the Apostles in the quality of Governours of the Church For as to the exception that may be made concerning the use of this Power I have already demurred to the doubt that may rest in difference between the succession of Faith and the succession of persons In fine not to insist here what the respective interests of publick and private persons in the Church are and ought to be because it is a point that cannot here be voided It shall be enough to say that of necessity the authority of publick persons in and for the whole must be such as may make and maintain the Church a Society of reasonable people not a Common-wealth of the Cyclopes in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no body is ruled by any body in any thing according to Euripides As for the Synagogues that may be presumed rather then evidenced to have subsisted in the ten Tribes during the Schisme Let him make appear what hee can hee shall never have joy of it towards his intent so long as the difference between the Law and the Gospel stands which I have â—ettled that the Church and the State were both one and the same Body under the Law as standing both by the same title of it But several under the Gospel the one standing upon the common ground of all Civil Government the other upon the common Faith of Christianity which ought to make all Christian States one and the same whole Church For in the two Tribes who were at their freedom to resort to the Temple for that service of God which was confined to the Temple which all could neither alwayes do nor were bound to do there is no record of any settled order for assembling themselves to serve God either in the Law obliging of right or actually practised according to Historical truth How much lesse in the ten Tribes being fallen from the Law by the Schism And if there wanted not those who had not bowed the knee to Baal nor Prophets and schools of Prophets under whom they might assemble themselves yet was this far from a Society formed by a certain Rule and Order for communicating in Gods service as I have shewed the Church is And therefore hee who upon that account thinks himself free from the Rule of Gods service under which wee now have in the Church of England must first either nullifie the Gospel as owning no such thing as one visible Church or prove the Church in which hee received his Christianity to be apostate Now I confesse our Doctor here makes use of an assumption which I intend not to deny being an evident truth That every man hath the Soveraign Power of judging in mater of Religion what himself is to beleeve or to do For how should any man be accountable to God for his choice upon other termes But hee will intangle himself most pitifully if hee imagine That God hath turned all men loose to the Bible to make what they can of it and professe the Religion that they may fansie to themselves out of it Even those who make men beleeve the Infallibility of the Church must in despite of themselves appeal to the judgement of whomsoever they perswade to pronounce that so it is And for the rest how much soever he referre himself to him that hath intangled him in that snare it proceeds wholly upon this supposition to which hee hath once made his understanding a slave But if all the world should do as men do now in England make every fansy taken up out of the Bible a Law to their Faith not questioning whether ever professed owned or injoined by the Church or not it would soon become questionable whether there be indeed any such thing as Christianity or not these that professe it agreeing in nothing wherein they would have it consist And for my part the the mater is past question supposing what hath been said That God provided from the beginning of Christianity that all Churches should be linked together by a Law of visible Communion in the service of God and so to make one Church For by this means to become a Member of any Church was to become a Member of the whole Church by the right of visible Communion with all Churches into which all Members of any Church were baptized And this it is which made the Church visible For when a man had no further to enquire but what Christians they were who in every City communicated with all Christians besides the choice was ready made without further trial avoiding the rest for Hereticks or Schismaticks And this choice being made there was no fear of offense by reading the Scriptures the sense whereof this choice confined to the Faith and Rules received through the whole Church So that speaking of Gods Institution every man is Soveraign to judge for himself in mater of Religion supposing the Communion of the Church and the sense of the Scripture to be confined within that which it alloweth But hee who thereupon takes upon him to judge of Religion out of the Scripture not knowing what bounds the Communion of the Church hath given the sense of it shall never impute it to Gods Ordinance if hee perish by chusing amisse Now if it be objected
Christians had not sufficiently renounced Idolatry in receiving the faith or as if it were not free for them being Christians to Gods creatures which perhaps might have been sacrificed to Idols But because as I said afore the Jews had a custome not to eat any thing till they had inquired whether sacrificed to Idols or consecrated by offering the first fruits thereof which scrupulosity those who did not observe they counted not so much enemies to Idols as they ought to be which opinion of their fellow Christians was not so consistent with that opinion of Christianity which was requisite Not as if fornication were not sufficiently prohibited by Christianity but because simple fornication being accounted no sinne but meerly indifferent among the Gentiles all the professions and all the decrees that could be made were little enough to perswade the Jews that their fellow Christians of the Gentiles held it in the like detestation as themselves Now though we find that the Christians did sometimes and in most places forbear blood and things strangled and offered to Idols even where this reason ceased and that perhaps out of an opinion that the decree of the Apostles took hold of them in doing which they did but abridge themselves of the common freedom of Christians yet seeing the Apostles give no such sign of any intent of reviving that which was once a Law to all that came from Noe but forgotten and never published again it followeth that the Church is no more led by the reason of their decree then those Churches of Rome and Corinth were whom S. Paul licences to eat all meats in generall as the Romanes or things sacrificed to Idols expresly as the Corinthians excepting the case of scandall which our common Christianity excepteth setting aside the decree of Jerusalem which S. Paul alledgeth not and naming two cases wherein that scandall might fall out as excepting no other case But in all these instances and others that might be brought as it was visible to the Church whether the reasons for which such alterations were brought into the Church continued in force or not so was it both necessary and sufficient for them that might question whither they were tied to them or not to see the expresse act or the custome of the Church for their assurance For what other ground had they to assure their consciences even against the Scripture in all ages of the Church For if these reasons be not obvious if every one admit them not much lesse will every one find a resolution wherein all may agree and all scandall and dissention may be suppressed CHAP. XXV The power of the Church in limiting even the Traditions of the Apostles Not every abuse of this power a sufficient warrant for particular Churches to reforme themselves Heresie consists in denying something necessary to salvation to be believed Schism in departing from the unity of the Church whether upon that or any other cause Implicite Faith no virtue but the effect of it may be the work of Christian charity SUpposing now the Church a Society and the same from the first to the second coming from Christ by Gods appointment Let it be considered what is the difference between the state thereof under the Apostles and under Constantine or now under so many Soveraignties as have shared these parts of the Empire And let any understanding that can apprehend what Lawes or what Customes are requisite to the preservation of unity in the communion of the Church in the one and in the other estate I say let any such understanding pronounce whither the same Lawes can serve the Church as we see it now or as we read of it under Constantine and as it was under the Apostles He that sayes yea will make any man that understands say that he understands not what he speaks of he that sayes nay must yeeld that even the Lawes given the Church by the Apostles oblige not the Church so farre as they become useless to the purpose for which they are intended seeing it is manifest that all Laws of all Societies whatsoever so farre as they become unserviceable so far must needs cease to oblige And the Apostles though they might know by the spirit the state of the Church that should come after yet had they intended to give Laws to that State they had not given Laws to the State which was when they lived and gave Laws The authority therefore of the Apostles remaining unquestionable and the Ordinances also by them brought into the Church for the maintenance of Gods service according to Christianity the Church must needs have power not onely to limite and determine such things as were never limited nor determined by the Apostles but even those things also the determination whereof made by the Apostles by the change of time and the state of the Church therewith are become evidently uselesse and unserviceable to the intent for which it standeth And if it be true that I said afore that all power produceth an obligation of obeying it in some things I say not in all as afore even when it is abused in respect of God and of a good Conscienceâ— then is the act of the Church so farre a warrant to all those that shall follow it so farre even in things which a man not onely suspects but sees to be ill ordered by those that act in behalfe of it This is that which all the variety and multitude of Canons Rites and Ordinances which hath been introduced into the Church before there was cause of making any change without consent of the whole evidenceth being nothing else but new limitations of those Ordinances which the Apostles either supposed or introduced for the maintenance of Gods service determining the circumstances according to the which they were to be exercised For if there were alwayes cause since the beginning for particular Churches that is parts of the vvhole to make such changes vvithout consent of the whole as might justly cause a breach between that part and the whole then was there never any such thing as a Catholick Church which all Christians profess to believe And truly the Jews Law may be an argument as it is a patern of the same right which notwithstanding an express precept of neither adding to it nor taking from it unlesse we admit a power of determining circumstances not limited by the letter of it becomes unserviceable and not to be put in practice as may easily appear to any man that shall peruse the cases that are put upon supposition of those precepts which determine not the same Whereupon a power is provided by the same Law of inflicting capitall punishment upon any that not resting upon the determination established by those that have authority in behalfe of the whole shall tend to divide the Synagogue Iintend not hereby to say that the power of giving Law to the Church cannot be so well abused that it may at length inable or oblige parts of the Church
clearly all things necessary to the salvation of all Christians it will not hurt my opinion to inferre That because it is unlawful to adde any thing to Moses Law by saying that it is and ought to be part of it when it is not nor ought to be therefore it is unlawfull to adde any thing to the Bible by saying that it is necessary to the salvation of all Christians though not written there For this my opinion sayes not And truly I must here alledge that Gods Law Deut. XVII 8 -12 provideth a power in that people to resolve and determine all things which the peace and unity of that people requireth to be determined And that for the effect of this power we have to show all the constitutions and determinations whereby the precepts of Moses Law are limited how they are to be observed which we find recorded in the Jews Talmud and all the disputes and debates that have ended in those determinations In as much as we have to allegde that our Lord in the Gospell hath commanded to hear the Scribes and Pharisees as those that sit in Moses Chair For those constitutions derive their Pedigree from those that were in force in our Lords time by the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees as it appears to all that compare them with the particulars mentioned in the Scriptures in Philo and Iosephus For though the particulars be not alwaies the same because time produces continual charge in particular custome yet there is agreement enough to show that it was successively the same authority that made such orderly and moderate changes as the state of the time might require or mens fancies imagine in the practise of their Law Whereby it is evident that the power of so interpreting the Law being established by the Law cannot be against the Law as forbidden by it And this abundantly enough for the justifying of that which I have said For the interpretation and limitation of the Precepts of the Law by the tradition left with Moses and by the Authority setled in the Synagogue being established by the Law cannot be counted an addition to the Law Therefore the interpretation of the Scriptures by Tradition left the Church by the Apostles and the limitation of the circumstances which the service of God is to be regulated with by the Authority setled in the Church cannot be counted an addition to Gods new Law or to the Scriptures of the New Testament But because the satisfaction of the Reader in the true intent of these precepts of the Law requires more I shall say further That I conceive that God providing a power requisite to determine all circumstances which the practice of the Law should require repeats neverthelesse a caution of adding to or taking from the Law that it might not be thought that this Power extended to alter any thing in the worship of the one true God which all the precepts of the Law tended to limite Surely in the Text of Deut. XII 32. this caution followes immediately upon warning given not to worship God by any of those Ceremonies with which the Gentiles honoured their false Gods the reason whereof is plain least by using the like ceremonies the honour of those false Gods to whom they were tendred by those that believed in them might be admitted Whereupon when it is inferred that nothing be added to or taken from those precepts by which the Law commandeth to serve the true God it is manifest how well the limitation of circumstances questionable in the practice of the Law stands with this caution so soon as it appears that the precepts thereof cannot be practised till so limited And upon the same caution Deut. IV. 2. he inferres immediately Thine eyes have seen what the Lord did to those that served Baal-peor now they are dead and thou alive this day As supposing this consequence That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should seduce them from his Laws Not this That if they stuck close to their own the true God nothing should perswade them to practice the precepts of his worship in that sorm which the power appointed by him should determine So that both Texts prepress upon them the precepts of the Law as those whereby the worship of the true God is distinguished not as if of themselves they contained mater to oblige that people or to procure them happiness And surely the determinations of their Elders as they concur to the same ends so are they inforced by the same obligation which the precepts themselves produce And therefore it will not be amiss to take notice how far the Jews who acknowledge all that I say of limiting the Law are from thinking it to be contradicted by these Scriptures Solomon Jarchi upon Deut. VI. 2. Thou stalt not adde As for example to the five Sections in the Phylacteries to the five kinds in the banquet which we cary at the feast of Tabernacles to the five Thrummes in the Fringes And so when he sayes Thou shalt not take away They are commanded by the Law to wear frontlets upon them to put them in remembrance of the precepts thereof Ex. XIII 9. Deut. VI. 8. XI 18. to carry in their hands and to walk with a Bush made up of the branches of severall trees at the feast of Tabernacles Levit. XXIII 40. to put a fringe to the corners of their Garments made of a thred of Hyacinth among others Numb V. 38. 39. But that those frontlets should contain five Sections of the Law no more that those fringes should consist of four kinds besides the Hyacinth which are the determinations of their Elders these according to his opinion they are as much forbidden to adde to as to take from that which is determined by the leter of the Law Abenezra seems to be more sober upon the same place Thou shalt not adde saith he Of your own conceit as thinking the worship of God to consist in it For believing that they vow to worship one God alone and that no passive acts which the light of nature injoyneth not can be esteemed the worship of God of themselves but in the doing of them is the keeping of that Law which appoints them it is one thing to worship God as the precepts of the Law determined by that Power which it appoints do injoyn another thing to introduce rules of worshipping God not by virtue of his Law but upon a mans own conceit And therefore it is forbidden them to inquire after the fashions by which the Gentiles worshipped their Gods Deut. XII 30. as a presumption that he which should say that he would worship God as they did their Idols had a mind to worship their Idols in stead of God otherwise he would rest content with that way of worshipping God which the Law had prescribed Whereupon the Jews determine that there are four Ceremonies which who so does to any thing but to God alone must be understood to worship it
knowledge as to think himselfe fit to recall the Lawes of his Country and give new Laws to the Church of God in it is not ashamed to admit that the reason why the Idolatries of Israelites were so odious to God was because he had not commanded them by the Scriptures As if God had never forbade them to worship Idols by the Scriptures For otherwise he could not have inferred by the words of the Prophet that a Christian ought to do nothing without a Text of Scripture to warrant it much lesse to admit any Law of the Church without such evidence Which had it been granted him with power to give the Church such Laws he could not have proceeded without demanding this exception that those which Cartwright should make without any such warrant might be counted godly and religious but these which the Church superstitious CHAP. XXVII Why it was death to transgress the determinations of the Jews Consistory and what power this argueth in the Church A difference between the authority of the Apostles and that of the Church The being of the Church to the worlds end with power of the Keyes makes it not infallible Obedience to Superiors and the Pillar of truth inferre it not IT will not be more difficult to show how the true sense of all those Scriptures which are alleadged towards the infallibility of the Church concurs to make good the terms upon which I have resolved the dispute in hand For having showed that the Law of Moses was given the Jews for the condition of holding the land of promise they ruling as well their civil communion as the service they tendred to God according to it I will demand but one thing more from the general experience of all civill people which is this That no form of Laws can be propounded to any community of men whatsoever so as to serve it without further determining and limiting of such things as time and the occurrences of time shall discover to be undetermined by that Law and therefore questionable So that Moses Law though given by God who foresaw whatsoever could become questionable concerning the mater of his Law yet because given for the civil Law of the people must needs be given liable to want such limitations as the occurrences of time should make requisite Neither can the truth hereof be better evidenced then by showing the course which God by the Law hath taken for the ending of all such disputes arising upon the Law I do therefore not onely grant but insist upon this that the power established by the law of Deut. XVII 8 -12 extendeth to all maner of debates arising upon occasion of any recept of Moses Law and to the determining of them by limiting those things which the leter of the Law had not expressed I do likewise grant that death is allotted for a penalty to whosoever should not conform to any such determination and the practice of the Law according to it And I do find so much reason for it that I do not understand how possibly that people should subsist and by consequence the Law which made them that people in practice of it without such a provision as this An opinion of the intent and meaning of God in the practice of any precept being sufficient to divide that people into parties not to be reconciled but by the voice of God either upon the occasion or by the Law warranting the sentence of those whom he authorizeth to declare what he requireth of his people Setting aside for the present to dispute whether it be the Priests alone or the Priests with the chiefe of the People in whom this Power is vested by the Law as for the present I dispute not who the persons are in whom the power of Church maters rests in behalf of the Church it is plainly by this Law a capitall crime to teach and do contrary to what the publick Power of that People should determine concerning the intent and practice of any Precept of that Law And therefore accordingly I grant insist that in the new Israel of God according to the Spirit which is the Church of Christ there is and ought to be a Power of putting out of the fellowship of the same any man that shall not stand to the resolution which legally is able to conclude it For without such a Power it cannot be imagined how the unity thereof should subsist seeing that there can be no community in which debates shall not arise about those things wherein they communicate I grant further and insist that he who is justly put out of the Church though meerly for violating the unity thereof by disobeying that just order which unites it is thereby condemned to the death of the world to come As he that teaches and does contrary to the sentence of that power that concludes the Synagogue is put out of this Notwithstanding as many other crimes besides this are capitall by the law of Moses so there be many other causes both of faith and of life by which a man forfeits his interest both in the world to come and in the communion of the Church But if any man argue that because a man forfeits the Communion of the Church by disobeying the determination thereof therefore all the determinations thereof are infallibly true and obliging by virtue of Gods Law I shall deny the consequence by virtue of that very Law of Deut. XVII 8 -12 upon which this Argument is grounded For whereas it makes disobedience a capital crime there are other Laws that suppose a breach of the Law even in following the determinations of that power which it establisheth At least if we admit the practice of those Jews that follow the Talmud in those precepts of Levit. VI. 13 -21 Numb XV. 21 -26 which indeed cannot reasonably be otherwise understood How should the Congregation offer sacrifices to expiate that ignorance wherein all were involved but as those that had power to make wrong determinations should expiate that ignorance which the Congregation by following had incursed Neither saith our Lord any lesse in the Gospel though in a mater of greater consequence when having condemned them that transgressed Gods commandment for the Tradition of their Predecessors Mat. XV. 5-10 Mar. VII 8-12 neverthelesse he commands them to observe and do all such things as the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in Moses Chair should command Mat. XXIII 2. to wit because the authority of Moses his Chair presupposed the Law of God but extended not to nullifie any part of it In like maner the authority of the Church presupposing the truth of Christianity the profession whereof makes Christians the Body whereof is the Church It is not possible that it should reach so farre as to warrant any man to believe that which those grounds upon which the truth of Christianity stands cannot evidence to be true I say not that the Church cannot determine what shall be taught and received in such disputes as
will divide the Church unlesse an end be put But I say that the Authority of the Church can be no reason obliging or warranting to believe that for truth which cannot be reasonably deduced from the motives of our common faith onely it shall be a reason obliging and warranting to keep the peace of the Church by not scandalizing such determinations thereof as are not destructive to the common faith Much more where the faith is not concerned onely the question is of determining the circumstances of those actions wherein the Communion of the Church is exercised which neither our Lord nor his Apostles have determined shall the disobeying of such determinations be the violating of that unity which all Christians professe that God hath ordained in his Church And now we have an easie account to give how the Prophets Haggai and Malachi send the Israelites to the Priest for resolution in those things which the practice of that people determined to belong to their office to resolve Because it cannot be doubted that their resolutions depended upon upon the acts of that authority which concluded that people by the Law aforesaid of Deut. XVII 8 -12 Which if not infallible and yet authorized by God to warrant the proceedings of his people it will be no marvail if those that act in dependance on them be authorized to warrant the people though further from being infallible To come now to those things that are alleadged to be said of the Apostles and of the Church having already limited the power of the Church not to extend to the faith of Christianity which it presupposeth it will be easie to distinguish it from the power of the Apostles Which though it presuppose the truth of Christianity preached by our Lord as that which they are imployed to introduce and establishâ— yet in order of nature and reason is before the very being of the Church as serving to evidence any truth of the Gospel to them that believe being convicted that they came from God to move them to believe For how can they stand obliged to believe the truth of our common Christianity to be that which God sent our Lord Christ to preach but by standing convict that the Apostles were sent by him to move them to accept of it and thereupon inabled with means to evidence this Commission and trust whereupon the world may safely repose themselves upon the credit of them whose act God owns by the witnesse he yields them for his own The true reason and ground upon which no act of theirs whither by word or writing is refusable by the Church Upon which the truth of things determined by their writings is no more determinable by the Church because the meaning of their words which is the truth sought for is in the words from the time they are said And is it then an unreasonable demand that their Charter He that heareth you heareth me extending to all that falls under their office should not be thought to descend upon the Church indefinitely but according to such limitations as the constitution thereof determineth That is to say not to the effect of creating faith but of preserving peace and unity in the Communion of the Church Not prejudicing neverthelesse that force of evidencing the truth of Christianity and the meaning of the Apostles writings which I have showed to be in the testimony of the Church not by any authority it hath from God but from that conviction which the testimony of such a body of men inferreth I shall not therefore deny that he who heareth or refuseth their successors heareth and refuseth God if that which they would be heard in be within the bounds of that power which God hath assigned them but is not the same that he assigned the Apostles But I shall utterly deny that it is by virtue of these words which were spoken by our Lord at such time as he had not declared whither they should have successors or not For there is very great appearance that they themselves after this expected to see the worlds end and the coming of Christ When the Apostles Mat. XXVI 3. inquire of our Lord When shall these things come to passe And what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the worlds end Though our Lord by this answer distinguisheth the time of the destruction of Jerusalem from the end of the world yet by the question there is no appearance that the Apostles did so distinguish before his answer And when his answer contains That this generation shall not be over till all these things come to passe and that not only after he had declared the destruction of Jerusalem but his coming and the end of the world Mat. XXIV 14 -23-29-34 it appeareth that those things which he declares shall forerun the worlds end were to begin before that generation were out when to end being not thought sit then to be said If this interpretation of Grotius which makes good the leter best suffer contradiction yet is it evident by S. Pauls Epistles 1 Cor. XV. 51 52. 2 Cor. V. 11-44 2 Thes IV. 15. 17. that he was not certificed but that the coming of Christ to judgement should be during his time In which S. Iohn by the Apocalypse was more fully informed If these things be true the obedience due to the Apostles successors cannot stand by virtue of this command given when it was not declared whither they were to have successors or not But by those Scriptures whereby it may appear so farre as in due place it shall appear whither or no and upon what terms the Apostles left their Authority with successors which when it appears then by consequence of reason it will be inferred from these words that who hears or refuses them hears or refuses God by whom the Apostles were inabled to leave such part of their power with successors Neither will it be strange that I allow not any Councill in which never so much of the authority of the present Church is united to say in the same sense and to the same effect as the Synode of the Apostles at Jerusalem It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Though I allow the overt act of their assembling to be a legall presumption that their acts are the acts of the Holy Ghost so farre as they appear not to transgresse those bounds upon which the assistance of the Holy Ghost is promised the Church For as for the Apostles I have showed before that they had the Holy Ghost given them not onely to preserve them in the truth of the common profession of Christians but to reveal unto them the true sense of the old Scriptures according to the Gospell which they preached though that grace was common to many more besides the Apostles not to all Christians upon which depended the resolution of the point then in debate Besides I do not intend to depart from that observation which I have made in another place that we find
by the Scriptures and by the primitive Records of the Church many revelations made to Gods people at their publick Assemblies by the means of such as had the Grace And thereupon do inferre that such a revelation was made to that Assembly upon the place directing the decree which there follows and is signified according to that brevity which the Scriptures use in alleadging that whereof no mention is premised in the relation that went afore by these words it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Now the words of our Lord Mat. XXVIII 20. Behold I am with you to the worlds end are manifestly said to the body of the Church and therefore do not promise it any priviledge of the Apostles And truly seeing it is a promise immediately insuing upon a Precept Go preach and make Disciples all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you I find it a matter of no ill consequence but very reasonable to say that the Precept is the condition of the Promise seeing no act so expressed can reasonably be understood otherwise But in regard it is otherwise manifest that the continuance of the Church is absolutely promised and foretold till the world end by name in those other words of our Lord The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Mat. XXI 18. I shall easily admit that God absolutely promises to be with his to the worlds end so as to preserve himselfe a people in the manifold distractions and confusions that fall out by the fault of those that professe themselves Christians as well as by the malice of Infidels But I shall deny that this inferres the gift of Infallibility in any person or quality in behalfe of the Body of Christians For supposing the visible profession of Christianity to continue till the worlds end so that under this visible profession there is sufficient means to conduct a true Christian in the way to salvation And that by this means a number of men invisibly united to our Lord Christ by his Spirit do attain unto salvation indeed These promises of our Lord will be evidently true though we neither acknowledge on one side any gift of Infallibility in the Church nor deny on the other side the visible unity of the Church instituted by Gods Law It will be evidently true that our Lord Christ is with his Disciples that is Christians till the worlds end who could not continue invisibly united to him without the invisible presence of his Spirit It will be evidently true that the Gates of Hell prevail not against his Church in the visible society whereof a number of invisible Christians prevail over the powers of darknesse For though granting the Church to be subject to error salvation is not to be attained without much difficulty And though division in the Church may create more difficulty in attaining salvation then errour might have done yet so long as salvation may be and is attained by visible communion with the Church so long is Christ with his nor do the Gates of Hell prevail against his Church though error which excludeth infallibility though division which destroyeth unity hinder many and many of attaining it But if the consequence that is made from those words of our Lord be lame that which may be pretended from the power of the Keyes or of remitting â—â—d retaining sins both one by the premises granted S. Peter the Apostles of the Church will easily appear to be none at all For no man can maintain the power of remitting and retaining sins to be granted to the Church but he must yield it to be communicated to more then those in whom the gift of Infallibility can be pretended to reside Neither can the greatest of the Apostles remit oâ— retain any mans sinne without inducing him to imbrace profession of Christianity or if having imbraced it he fall from it in deed and in effect without reducing him to the course and study of performing the same and upon due profession thereof readmitting him into the Church on the other side excluding those that cannot be reduced to this estate Nor can the least of all that are able to bring any man into the Church fail of doing the same upon the same terms And did ever any man ascribe the gift of Infallibility to all them that should have power and right from the Church and in the Church to do this What meaneth then the exception of clave non errante which is every where and by every body cautioned for that with any reason challenges the power of the Keyes for the Church To me it seems rather an argument to the contrary that seeing this power is challenged for the Church under this general exception without limiting the exception to any sort of maters or subjects And that the act of it is the effect of the decrees of the greatest authority visible in the Church as whether Arias should communicate with the Church or not was the issue of as great a debate as the authority of the Church can determine that therefore the sentence of his excommunication proceeded not from the gift of Infallibility in any authority concurring to the decree of Nicaea whence it proceeded granting generally the power of excommunication to be liable to the exception of clave non errante Indeed it cannot be denyed that something requisite to the exercise of this power was in the Apostles infallible or unquestionable as presupposed to the being of the Church For what satisfaction could men have of their Christianity if any doubt could remain whether the faith which they preached were sent from God or not whither the Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which they advanced were according to their Commission or not But the causes upon which the Church is obliged to proceed to imploy this Power being such as depend many times upon the rule of faith and the Laws given the Church by the Apostles by very many links between both The dependance whereof it is hard for all those that are sometimes to concur to these sentences to discern I conceive it now madnesse to maintain the gift of Infallibility from the power of the Keyes in the exercise whereof so many occasions of failing may come to pass As for the exhortations of the Apostles whereby they oblige the Churches of the Thessalonians and Ebrues diligently to obey and follow their Governors 1 Thes V. 14. 15. Heb. XIII 7. 17. these I acknowledge to be pertinent to the question in debate as concerning such Governours as had in their hands the ordinary power of the Church saving that when he saith Remember your Rulers which have spoken to you the word of God And considering the issue of their conversation imitate their faith It is possible he may speak of those that first brought them the Gospel and those were the Apostles and Disciples of Christ either of the first rank of the XII or
the second of the LXX whose privildges are not to be communicated to any authority to be preserved in the Church afterwards But the importance of these exhortations is not such as can inferre any imagination of infallibility in those whom they are exhorted to follow For they that know the bounds of that Power which the Apostles had trusted with the Governours of particular Churches presupposing the Christianity and Laws of Ecclesiastical communion which themselves had delivered may safely be exhorted to acknowledge them to esteem them above measure in love to obey them and to give way to them remembring those from whom they had first received Christianity from whom they had received these instructions as well as their then Rulers because they had long before received and yielded obedience to those things which we except from the obedience of present Rulers as presupposed to any power they can challenge As for the words of S. Paul 1 Tim. III. 15. I confess they containe a very just and full attribute of the Church and a Title serving to justifie all the right I challenge for it For if the Church be the House of the living God then is it by Gods founding and appointment a Body consisting of all members of the true Church wherein God dwells as of old in the Temple at Jerusalem as he dwells in every Christian as he dwelt in the Tabernacle and Campe of the Israelites And if it be the Pillar that sustains the truth then must it have wherewith to maintain it beside the truth it selfe which is the Scriptures And what what can that be but the testimony of it selfe as a body and fellowship of men onely which securing it selfe that is succession by the evidence made to the Predecessors of the same body maintains the truth once committed to the trust of it not onely by writing but also by practice But what is this to the gift of Infallibility for suppose the Church by the foundation of it inabled to maintain both the truth and the sufficience of the motives of faith against Infidels and also the rule of faith against Hereticks by the evidence which it maketh that they are received What is this to the creating of faith by decreeing that which before it was decreed was not the object of faith but upon such decree obligeth all faithful to believe Surely the Church cannot be the Pillar that sustains any faith but that which is laid upon it as received from the beginning not that which it layeth upon the foundation of faith Here I will desire the Reader to peruse these words of S. Basil Epist LXII speaking of the Bishop of Neo caesarea deceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is a man gone that of all men of his time most evidently excelled in all and every of those good things that belong to men The stay of his Country the ornament of the Church the Pillar that sustained the truth For if a particular Prelate may duly be qualified as well the Pillar that supporteth the truth as the prop of his Country Well may the Church be thought capable of the same stile though it create no matter of faith by decreeing but onely preserve that which it hath received by defending and maintaining it CHAP. XXXI The Fathers acknowledge the Sufficience and clearness of the Scriptures as the Traditions of the Church They are to be reconciled by limiting the terms which they use The limitation of those sayings which make all Christian truth to be contained in the Scriptures Of those which make the authority of the Church the ground of Faith IT is now time having showed the meaning of those Scriptures which are alleged for both extremes which I avoid to do the like for some of those sayings of the Fathers which are pleaded to the same purpose This abridgment cannot consider all Therefore I will not multiply those which speak to one and the same purpose Nor marshal them according to the mater which they speak to Finding them speak to any branch of those extremes which I decline I will put them down as they come S. Augustine again de Doctr. Christianâ II. 6. for one place you had afore Magnifice salubriter Spiritus Sanctus ità Scripturas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus fastidia detergeret Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur Gallantly as well as wholesomly hath the Holy Ghost so tempered the Scriptures as to satisfie hunger by those places that are plain by those that are obscure to wipe of queasiness For there is scarce any thing digged out of those dark places that is not found most manifestly said elsewhere Epist III. Tanta est Christianarum profunditas literarum ut in eis quotidie proficerem si eas solas ab ineunte pueritiâ usque ad decrepitam senectutem maximo otio summo studio meliore ingenio conarer addiscere Non quòd ad ea quae necessaria sunt saluti tant â in eis perveniatur difficultate Sed cùm ibi quisque fidem tenuerit sine quâ rectè pieque non vivitur tam multa tamque multis mysteriorum umbraculis opaca intelligenda proficientibus restant So great is the depth of the Writings of Christianity that I should profit in them continually if I should indeavor to learn them onely at very great leasure with most earnest study having a better wit from the beginning of my nonage till decrepit old age Not as if it were so hard to attain to that which is necessary in them But when a man hath attained the Faith without which there is no good and godly living there remain so many things to be understood and so darkly shadowed with manifold mysteries Clemens Protreptico 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hear yee then that are farre off hear yee that are near hand The word is not hid from any It is a common light it shineth upon all men There are no Cimmerians in the Word As some said then that there were in the world that had no Sun Irenaeus II. 46. Vniversae Scripturae Propheticae Apostolicae in aperto sine ambiguitate similiter ab omnibus audiri possunt All the Scriptures both of the Prophets and Apostles are open and without ambiguity and may be heard or understood alike of all III. 15. Doctrina Apostolorum manifesta firma nihil subtrahens neque alia quidem in abscondito alia verò in manifesto docent um The doctrine of the Apostles is clear and firm and conceals nothing As not teaching one thing in secret and another openly Origen contra Celsum VII 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The vnlgar after their entrance made may easily study to apprehend even the deeper notions that are hid in the Scriptures For it is manifest to any man that reads them that they may have much deeper sense than that which straight appears in them Which becomes
do I suppose then that we cannot come to a more peremptory issue with the Socinians then by putting to triall whether this name of God be attributed to our Lord Christ to signify such a quality as is incompetible to a creature noâ— that be more peremptorily tried then by evidencing what is the honour and esteem which the name of God importeth in our Lord Christ and in Gods creatures For seeing that honour inwardly is nothing else but the esteem which a reasonable creature beareth in mind of that which it honoureth outwardly the signs of that esteem And seeing the distance between the nature of God and that of the creature is so unvaluable that it is impossible that he who believeth that there is that which deserveth the name of God should ever imagine that there is more then one It must remaine no lesse impossible that whosoever takes God for God should ever take any creature of never so great eminence for the same Indeed that inward honour which I found in the esteem of the minde is a thing of a finite and moderate nature whether it represent God or his creature the understanding in which it is not being capable of any thing that is not proportionable to it Which notwithstanding nothing hinders a finite conceit in the mind of a creature to represent an infinite perfection in that which it representeth if any true conceit of God can be found in any of his understanding creatures It is then manifest that I say not among the Socinians but among those who upon misunderstanding the grounds of Reformation have fallen away from the most holy Faith of the Church concerning the ever blessed Trinity there hath fallen a difference whether our Lord Christ is to be worshipped as God or not Socinus being now in appearance the head of that party which would have it so And therefore I shall not much need to dispute that but onely for satisfaction of the reader repeat some of those texts of Scripture which they seem to have stopped the mouthes of their adversaries with For when the Apostle saith Heb. I. 6. When he bringeth his onely begotten Sonne into the World he saith And let all the Angels of God worship him Supposeth he not that men should do that which Angels by Gods authority do And our Lord discourses John V. 22 23. that God hath given the power of judging to the Sonne That all may hanour the Sonne as the Father He that honoureth not the Sonne honoureth not the Father that sent him And This is that will of God the knowledge whereof moves Angels and men to fall down before the Lamb that was slaine and give him honour and glory Apoc. V. 8-13 Nor can any Christian deny that he was worshipped in any other sense or quality either by the blind man whom he had restored to sight John IX 39. or by others whom we find to be accepted of him as those who had been well instructed of him and by him in that which they owed him Luke XVII 5. Lord increase our Faith Mar. IX 24. Lord uphold my unbelief Mat. XX. 30. Have mercy upon us O Lord thou Sonne of David Luke XVII 13. Jesu Master have mercy upon us And Lord save us we perish Therefore our Lord saith to the Angel of Laodicea Apoc. III. 18. I advise thee to buy of me gold tried from the fire For what should he buy it with but the worship of God by prayers And the Apostle Heb. IV. 14 15. We have not an high Priest that cannot compassionate our infirmities but who was tempted in all things like us without sin Let us therefore go to the Throne of his grace that we may obtaine mercy and find grace for help in time Againe S. Paul Rom. X. 12 13. The same Lord is rich to all that call on him For whosâ— shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved For that the worship of the onely true God goes with the name of the Lord ascribed to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament no question can be made So saith S. Luke of the first of Martyrs Acts VII 59 60. And they stâ—ned Stephen praying and saying Lord Jesu receive my Spirit And kneeling he cried with a loud voice saying Lord lay not this sinne to their charge Every Christian can tell by what he does whom Stephen calls Lord. And that is enough to shew how ridiculous they make themselves who when S. Stephen saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have it understood that he calls upon the Lord of Jesus not upon the Lord Jesus For when S. Stephen offers to Christ the same prayer which Christ had offered to the Father and David to God Luke XXIII 46. Psal XXXI 6. Is it not the same honour whereof God alone is capable For they that should say that S. Stephen prayed this not because all Christians are to pray so but because he saw our Lord Christ at the right hand of God Should make that which would have been Idolatry otherwise to become acceptable service to God upon an accident depending on the free will of God And what else did S. Paul when he said 2 Cor. XII 8 9. Therefore besought I God thrice that it might depart from me But he said to me My Grace is sufficient for thee For my power is effectuall through weaknesse Most willingly therefore will I glory in my weaknesse that the power of God may dwell in me And S. John when he prayes Come Lord Jesus Apoc. XXII 20. prayes to him whose coming he desires that is whose strength is effectuall through weaknesse And whom else prayes S. Paul to when he saies 1 Thes III. 11 12. But God who is our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ prosper our Journey to you And 2 Thes II. 16. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father who hath loved us and given everlasting comfort and good hope through grace comfort your hearts and strengthen you in every good word and work For there being here no difference between the worship tendered to God and to Christ I must needs infer that it is the same which S. Paul signifies when he intitles his Epistle to all that call upon the name of the common Lord 1 Cor. I. 2. It is true they that alledge all these arguments doe likewise caution that this worship and these prayers which are tendered to God absolutely are tendered to Christ with limitation of some certaine circumstances which being supposed it becomes due to Christ being alwayes due to God But if the difference between God and his creature be not acknowledged it is impossible Christianity should stand If the difference between the worship due to God and to his creature be not acknowledged it is impossible the difference between God and his creature should stand Because worship is nothing else but the acknowledgement of this difference Therefore where the worship of God is tendered to his creature either the creature is made an Idol
seems to demonstrate not only the Tradition of the Apostles concerning Penance and Excommunication which it abateth and the Keyes of the Church which it manageth but also the Power which it exerciseth not to consist in pardoning sinne at large and immediately but in procuring that disposition to which the Gospel hath proclaimed forgiveness and upon knowledge thereof in assuring the pardon which it pronounceth For whoso considereth the premises can never be so madd as to imagine that men were refused reconcilement even at the point of death or reconciled with a reservation of Penance to be performed if they survived meerly for the satisfaction of the Church and the example of others But because the Church remained not satisfied that God was satisfied with their present disposition as qualifying them for pardon according to his promise Some men have mistaken themselves so farr as to imagine that when a man was admitted to absolution by imposition of hands and the Communion in danger of death by the ancâ—ient Church he could stand bound no further to any Penance But it is very evident in the practice of the ancient Church that in regard some sinnes were not admitted to reconcilement by Penance therefore it concerned the Penitent in the first place to make suit to be admitted Which being granted and he having undertaken the Penance imposed upon him in the next place he was admitted to the Prayers of the Church at all the solemn Assemblies of the Church during the time of his Penance with imposition of hands as the means to obtain pardon at Gods hands So Imposition of hands signified not Absolution but the way to it and capacity of it supposing the performance of Penance imposed And this is petere poenitentiam accipere poenitentiam propter manûs impositionem in the ancient canons by name Concil Tolet. XI can XII to demand Penance and to accept of Penance by imposition of hands As appears by that form of the publick service of the Church which you have in the Constituions II. 8. 9. where you have the form of prayer to be offered for Penitents when they were dismissed before the celebration of the Eucharist he that prayeth holding his hands over them kneeling Neither was there any other absolution then this in use according to the ancient custome of the Church He who having declared himself offended at himself for that which he had done had obtained of the Church to be admitted to Penance for the time that his Penance continued was prayed for by the Church that his sinne might be pardoned in order to communion with the Church The time of his Penance being compleated his absolution was the restoring of him to communion with the Church in the Sacrament of the Eucharist This is that absolution upon which the Church warranteth his pardon not by pronouncing him pardoned but supposing him qualified for it by that disposition which his Penance had produced And though afterwards the form of absolution changed and was pronounced by way of sentence not by way of Prayer desired yet was there still the more doubt to be made of the validity thereof the more confidence it signified because the more trust was reposed in the power of the Church the lesse provision was made for that disposition which the Gospel before the being of the Church requireth One thing more I desire may be considered in the practice of the ancient Church to evidence the same which is this The Church being necessitated to abate of the primitive strictnesse and to admit all maner of sinnes to reconcilement by Penance that they might the better answer their trust to God in not warranting the pardon of sinne without reasonable trial of repentance took a course of lengthning the time of Penance during which the conversation of the Penitent might yield assurance of it For the Canons whereby so many years Penance is prescribed upon such and such sinnes were couched in writing long after the times of Montanus or Novatians And therefore the customes whereby they came in force before they came in writing had their beginning from that obligation which the Church desired to discharge of not warranting forgiveness of sinne but upon due grounds In this case then and generally whosoever was injoyned Penance to qualifie him for communion with the Church if he did any eminent act which might evidence the sincerity and zeal of his conversion or his forwardness and eagerness in taking revenge upon himself was not onely of custome and course so much the easier readmitted by the Church but was ordered by the Canons to be so much the easier and sooner readmitted For evidence whereof as also of divers other particulars here alleadged I will remit the Reader that would be informed to Morinus his great work de administratione Poenitentiae It shall serve my turn here to point out to you the ground which these effects evidence to be this That the Catholick Church proceeded not in binding and loosing as if it had any power to give pardon at large But as supposing that those that are bound by the Church cannot be loosed but by the Church nor loosed by the Church but supposing the disposition that qualifieth for pardon produced in them by that Penance which the authority thereof constraineth to undergo And therefore that in the power of injoyning Penance fitting as well as of declaring pardon the power of forgiving sinnes in the Church is by the tradition of the Church declared to consist I will conclude with the words of Firmilianus Bishop of Casarea Cappadocia in his Leter to S. Cyprian among S. Cyprians LXXV He saith that they used in their parts to hold Synods every year Ut si qua graviora sunt communi consilio dirigantur Lapsis quoque fatribus post lavacrum salutare à Diabolo vulneratis per poenitentiam medela quaeratur Non quasi à nobis remissionem peccatorum consequantur sed ut per nos ad intelligentiam delictorum suorum convertantur domino pleniùs satisfacere cogantur This businesse of greater waight may be ordered by common advice And remedy found by Penance for brethren that have fallen away being wounded by the Devill after the laver of salvation Not as if they got pardon of sinnes from us but that being by our means converted to understand their own sinnes they may be constrained to make the fuller satisfaction to God These are the very terms upon which my opinion standeth Let us now compare the Originall and general practice of the Church with that which we have in the Apostles writings and say by the agreement whither their authority were the beginning of it or not Shall we think that all who ever questioned the reconciling of some sinnes were utterly void of common sense in imagining that the Apostle to the Hebrews and S. John writing of the sin unto death intended not to speak of that pardon which the Church may or ought to give or not give when
about to impose new Laws upon the Church But those new Laws I show you were excepted against from the beginning of pretending them Let any man show me that voluntary confession of secret sins was ever exceped against in Tertullian who writ that Book when he was of the Catholick Church earnestly perswading to it Likewise though he writ his Book de Pâ—dicitia when he was become a Montanist yet it is easie to discern what he speaks in it as a Montanist by discerning what the Catholick Church contests and what it allows of his doctrine In the seventh Chapter of that Book it is manifest that he calls those sinnes to Penance which he were a mad man that should take either for scandalous or for notorious The Novatians being a branch of the Montanists and refusing to reconcile the greatest sins are to be thought to have followed their order in reconciling lesse sins as it is manifest by S. Ambrose de Poenit. V. 2. that they did Therefore they and therefore the Catholick Church did practice the discipline of Penance upon sins neither notorious nor scandalous In S. Cyprianâ— you have severall places where he mentions Penance for those sinnes which were to be confessed according to the custome of the Church after a certain time of humiliation when they were to be admitted to imposition of hands that is to the prayers of the Church for the pardon of him whom the Bishops blessing which the â—mposition of hands signifies acknowledged hopefull for remission of sinnes Epist X. LV. The same S. Cypriane de lapsis manifestly instances in those that had committed Idolatry secretly or had resolved towards it what befel them because they revealed it not to the Church so that sometimes they did reveal it Here cometh in the fact of Nectarius related by Socrates V. 19. because the custome being to confesse to a Priest deputed to that purpose sinnes not otherwise known who was to direct what she should publickly declare when she came before the congregation a certain noble Woman whose case is there related proceeded to declare that which caused such scandall that thereupon Nectarius then Bishop of Constantinople thought fit to put down the office which that Priest then held and executed of receiving the confession of those sinnes which were afterwards in part to be made known to the Church as the Priest intrusted should direct For Socrates relating the discourse which he had with the Priest which advised Nectarius to abolish the office aforesaid saith that he told him it was to be feared that he had given occasion to bring S. Pauls precept to no effect which saith Communicate not in the fruitlesse workes of darknesse but rather reprove them Which must suppose the publishing of those sinnes which a man may pretend by brotherly correction to restore And it is manifest that secret confession of sinnes hath remained in the Eastern Church and in that of Constantinople particularly even to this time So that no man can imagine that it was abrogated by Nectarius Origen in Psal XXXVII Hom. II. advises indeed to look about you for a skilful Physitian to whom you may open the disease of your soul good reason For there being a number of Presbyters by whom every Church was governed and it being in a mans choice whom he would have recourse to were he not to blame that should not make diligent choice But when he adviseth further that if he think the sinne fit to be declared to the assembly of the Church as where it is to be cured doth he not require necessary Penance upon voluntary confessions S. Ambrose de Pâ—nit II. 7. I. 6. II. 8. 9. laboureth to abate the shame of confessing sinnes If he speak of publick sinnes there can be no reason why For what hath he to do to abate that shame that cannot be avoided That which may be avoided is that which cometh by confessing such sins as it is in a mans power to conceal The same is evident in S. Augustinâ— Hom. ult ex L. And is further cleared by this that it is evident that he who was discovered not to have discovered to the Church that sinne which he was privy to but the world was not is by many acts of the Church constrained to undergo Penance for that default And in the Eliberitanâ— Canons it is provided that he who confesseth of his own accord shall come off with a lighter Penance he who is revealed by another shall be liable to a harder censure Can. LXXVI But no evidence can be so effectuall as the introducing of the Law of auricular confession that is of confessing once a year as well as receiving the Eucharist once a year For be it granted as it is most true that this Law comes into force and effect by the secular power of those soveraignties of Christendom which complying with the interest of the Church of Rome have agreed and do agree to inact the decrees of those Councils which have been held by the authority of it or the provisions thereof during the time that no Councils are held by temporall penalties upon their iubjects Is it therefore imaginable that the Councill could have pretended to introduce this limitation and demand the secular power to inact it had it not been a custome in force before that act was done that people should submit themselves to Penance for those sinâ—es which the Church without themselves could not charge them with Could any man offer so much violence to his own reason as to affirm that which himself cannot believe he would easily be convinced by producing the fashion of Ashwednesday and the order for the greatest part of Christians to declare themselves Penitents at the beginning of Lent with a pretence of obtaining absolution to the intent of receiving the communion of the Eucharist at Easter Which being more ancient then that law sufficiently demonstrateth that the effect of it was not to introduce the confession of secret sinnes which alwayes had been in use and force in the Church but expresly to limit and determine that which had been alwayes done formerly for the future to be done by all and at the least once a year It remains now to show the originall and generall practice of the Church that there is no Tradition to evidence that no sinne after Baptism can obtain remission but by the Church speaking of such sinnes as make the grace of Baptism void which is sufficiently done already if we remenber that not only the Montâ—nists or the Novatians but the Church also did sometimes exclude some sinnes from all hope of reconciliation by the Church not excluding them neverthelesse from hope of pardon with God but not ingaging the Church to warrant it For I demand in what consideration that pardon is obtained which the Church supposes possible for them to obtain Is it not upon the same score as all Christians obtain padon of sin To wit by being qualified for it with that disposition of mind which
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
Congregations I do indeed acknowledge that there is difficulty in expounding those texts of the Apostles which speak to this purpose so as to agree them with the Originall and universal practice of the Church And therefore it is no marvail if learned men that have handled this point among us where without affectation I may say that it hath been most curiously and ingenuously disputed have gone several wayes upon severall grounds in assigning the reason why the degree of Deacons is mentioned next to the degree of Bishops in so many texts of the Apostles having the order of Priests between both as the original and perpetual custome of the Church required For it is well enough known that there is an opinion published and maintained by many learned observations in the primitive antiquity of the Church that during the time when those texts of the Apostles were written there were but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons established in the Church though Bishops also are called Presbyters the name not being yet appropriated to the midle order while it was not introduced as afterwards it came to be And this opinion allegeth Epiphanius very fitly confuting Aerius the Heretick or Schismatick objecting the same that at the beginning the multitude of believers in less places being so small that one Governour together with some Ministers to attend upon him in executing his Orders might well serve them it is no marvail if there be no mention of any more Orders in so many texts of the Apostles And it may be said that as there were Churches founded and governed by a certain order from the beginning that we read of them in the Apostles so no Bishop Priest or Deacon was appropriated to any particular Church till after that time by degrees they came to be selled to certain Churches by Ecclesiastical Law and Custome So that during the time of the Apostles themselves and their companions whom they associated to themselves for their assistance were in common the Governours of Churches then founded according as they fell out to be present in these Churches to whom they had the most relation by planting and watering the faith planted in them either by virtue of the agreement taken by the Apostles within themselves or by the appointment of some of them if we speak of their companions and assistances But afterwards when the faith came to be setled then as those which had been Governours of Churches in common before became chief Governours of particular Churches to whom by lawful consent they became appropriated so were they provided of Priests and Deacons to assist and attend them in the execution of their office towards the body of Christians then mulplyed in severall Churches I do confess to have declared an opinion something differing from both of these sayings about the reason here demanded As not being perswaded either that the Order of Presbyters was not yet introduced into the Church during the Apostles time or that chief Governours were not appropriated and setled in some Churches during the same though I have no need to undertake that in all they were believing and maintaining that the Apostles themselves in the Churches of their own planting and watering were acknowledged chief Governours in ordering notwithstanding their extraordinary both Power not confined to any one Church and graces and abilities porportionable In which regard and under which limitation visible to the common sense of all men of their own and the next ages I do maintain Bishops to be their successors Whereupon it follows that I allow the name of Bishops in the Apostles writings to comprehend Priests also because of the mater of their function common to both though with a chief Power in the Bishop in Priests so limited as to do nothing that is to say nothing of consequence to his Power over the whole Church without his consent and allowance But this variety of opinion in expounding these Scriptures draweth after it no further consequence to prejudice the primitive Law of Goverment in the Church then this That there are more waies then one to answer the seeming probabilities pretending to make the evidence of Catholick Tradition unreconcileable with the truth of the Scriptures in the agreement whereof the demonstration of this truth consisteth I conceive therefore I might very well referre my self to the Readers free judgement to compare the reasons which I have produced with those that since have been used Notwithstanding I shall not think much briefly according to the model of this design to express the sense I have of the most native meaning of the most texts alleged in this businesse that I may have opportunity to point out again the peremptory exceptions which â—re visible in them either to the imagination of mungrill Prâ—sbyteries compounded of Clergy and People during the time of the Apostles or of the chief Power of any such Presbyteries in their resepective Churches CHAP. XVII The Power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the Interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Flders FIrst then as the name of Apostle in the Originall meaning is very general to signifie any commissary Proxy delegate or Ambassador so the use of it in the Apostles writings is larger then to be confined to the twelve For when S. Paul saith That our Lord appeared to the twelve afterwards to all the Apostles 1 Cor. XV. 5. 7. He must needs understand other Apostles besides the twelve perhaps the same that he meant where he reckoned Andronicus and Junias remarkable among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. And that in another â—ense then Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles Act. XIV 4. 14. For the name of Apostle intimating whose Apostle he is that is called an Apostle we have no reason to count Paul and Barnabas any mans Apostles but our Lord Christs though they were first sent with the blessing of such Doctors and Prophets as the Church of Antiochia then had Acts XIII 1. 2 3. whose authority cannot in any reason be thought to extend so farre as to constitute an Apostle parâ—llel to the Twelve which S. Paul so oft so expresly challenges For since we see their commission is immediately from the Holy Ghost that is from God we are not to value their right by the solemnity which it is visibly conferred upon them with Unlesse you will say that by virtue of that Imposition of Hands they were messengers and Commissaries of that Church and that they then appeared to be no more then so though afterwards God set on them marks of the same authority with the Twelve Truly those whom S. Paul calls false Apostles transferring themselves into the Apostles of Christ 1 Cor. XI 13. must neâ—ds be understood to have pretended commission from our Lord Christ himself For hereupon they stood upon it that they had
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
Bishop above his Presbyters not to be derived from any agreement of the Church but from the appointment of the Apostles In the mean time suppoâ—â—ng the whole Church to agree in that which God had inabled them to agree in having not tied them to the contrary but having tied them to live in viâ—â—ble unity and communion all Churches with all Churches they that depart from this Unity upon this account shall bee no less Schismaâ—â—cks then had the Superiority of Bishops been setled by the Apostles This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XVIII The Apostles all of oequall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-â—minence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it SOme consideration I must now bestow upon that Position which derives a Monarchy over the Church from S. Peters priviledges For I make no scruple to grant that he was indeed the first and chief of the Apostles as he is reckoned in the Gospels Mat. X. 2. Mar. III. 16. Luk. VI. 14. and that in likelihood because he was the first in leaving all to adhere unto our Lord as the man to whom our Lords call is directed Luk. V. 4-11 though he was first brought to our Lord by bis brother Andrew as Philip once brought Nathanael that was not of the twelve John I. 41-46 so that this first call gave them acquaintance but made them not Apostles And from this beginning we may well draw the reason why S. Peter is alwaies the forwardest to answer our Lords demands and to speak in the name of his fellows Mat. XIV 28. XV. 25. XVI 16. XVII 24. XVIII 21. XIX 27. XXVI 33. Mar. VIII 29. X. 28. XI 21. XIV 29. Luk. VIII 45. IX 20. XII 41. XVIII 28. XXII 34. Joh. VI. 68. XIII 6. Act. I. 13. 15. II. 14. 37. IV. 8. which it would not become the reverence we owe the Apostles so impute to S. Peters sorwardnesse without acknowledging the ground of it being visible But these priviledges will not serve to make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles The stress lies upon Mat. XVI 16-19 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou arâ— the Christ the Son of the living God And Jesus answered and said to him Blessed art thou Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father in the heavens And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loose in the heaven And upon John XXI 15. 16 17. where S. Peter thrice professing to love Christ receives of him thrice the command of Feeding his sheep But will this serve the turn ever a whit more It must be either by virtue of the mater which our Lord sayes of or to S. Peter or by virtue of his saying it to S. Peter and to none else Against this later consideration I conceive I have provided by the premises For seeing there is a sufficient reason to be given otherwise why S. Peter answers before the rest when our Lord demand whom they acknowledge him to be the reply of our Lord addressed to him alone will give him no more then the precedence not the Soveraignty over the Apostles Which is still more evident in S. John because S. Peter having undertaken before the rest to stand to our Lord in the utmost of all his trialls had deserted him most shamefully of them all denying udder an oath to have any knowledge of him For it is not observed for nothing that he professes the love of Christ thrice Let S. Peter then be the Prince Apostle or the chiefe Apostle let him be if you please the Prince of the Apostles there will be found a wide distance between Princeps Apostolorum in Latine as some of the Fathers have called him and Soveraign over the Apostles When Augustus seized into â—is hand the soveraign Power of the Romane Empire nomine Principis as we read the beginning of Tacitus under the title of Prince He was well aware that the Title which he assumed did not necessarily proclaim him Soveraign which he deâ—â—red not to do As for the â—aâ—er of our Lords words those that fear where there is no fear wil have our Lord say that he buildeth his Church upon the Faith of S. Peter profâ—ssing our Lord to be Christ Or to point at himselfe when he saith Upon this Rock will I build my Church But what needs it Saith he any more to S. Peter then S. Paul saith to the Ephesians II. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Or S. John of the new Jerusalem Revel XXI 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations upon which were the names of the XII Apostles of the Lambe How then shall S. Peter be Soverâ—ign by virtue of an attribute common to him with the rest of the Apostles Some conceive that when our Lord proceeds to tell him that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church He meanâ— no more but that he will rescue his from death by raising them again But raising from death implies raising from sinne in the Old Testament expresses it in the New And the City of God which is the Church in the New Testament referrs to the City of Satan that oppugneth it And therefore The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Cannot signifie lesse then a promise that the Church shall continue till our Lords second coming to judgement notwithstanding the malice of Satan and his complices But S. Peter is not the onely foundation of it though no body else be named here Again our Lord gives S. Peter the Keyes of his Church here as in S. John he commands him to feed his flock But is the office of feeding Christs flock S. Peters peculiar Have not the Apostles the charge of it even from our Lord do they do it by virtue of S. Peters commission or by his appointment How are they Christs Apostles otherwise As for the Keyes of the Church they are given to S. Peter here they are given to the Twelve by the power of remitting and retaining sinnes as I have shewed John XX. 21. 22 23. by the power of binding and loosing they are given to the Church Mat. XVIII 18. And can any man make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles and over the Church by virtue of that which is no priviledge of his the rest of the Apostles and the Church being all indowed with it Hear we not what S. Luke saith Act. VIII 14. The Apostles
ground for Councils and for their authority which I have laid in the first Book nor bound the right of Civil and Ecclesiasticall Power in giving force to the acts of them which I reserve for the end of this third Bood But to evidence the constitution of them from whence their authority in the Church must proceed I maintain here from the premises that the originall constitution of the Church determineth the person of the Bishop to represent his respective Church in Council And that the constitution of Councils consisting of Bishops representing their respective Churches evidenceth the authority of Bishops in the same Which produceth the effect of obliging either the whole Church or that part which the Council representeth by the consent of Votes The act of the Council of Jerusalem under the Apostles Act. XV. was respective to the Churches of Jerusalem and Antiochia with those which were planted from thence by Paul and Barn 〈…〉 made by an authority sufficient to oblige the whole Church The El 〈…〉 concurred to the vote with the Apostles those that will be so ridicul 〈…〉 for Lay Elders of Presbyters But will never tell us how the V 〈…〉 Elders should oblige the Church of Antiochia and the plantations 〈…〉 y were the Elders who joyned with the Apostles from whom they could not be dis-joyned were able to oblige the whole Church And indeed there is no mention of them in the acts of chusing Matthias and the seven Deacons Acts I. VI. which acts concerned the whole Church And therefore there is appearance that the authority which they alwayes had in respect of the Church to be constituted was by that time known to be limited by the allowance and consent of the Apostles But when I granted that S. Paul seems to allow both the Romanes and the Corinthians to eat things sacrificed to Idols as Gods creatures I did not grant that his authority could derogate from the act of the Apostles But that the act of the Apostles was not intended for the Churches represented at the doing of it As that which was done Act. XXI how great soever the authority might be that did it seems to extend no further then the occasion in hand That which remains then in the Scriptures agreeth perfitly well with the original practice of the whole Church It cannot be denied that there are here and there in the records of the Church instances evidencing the sitting of Presbyters in Council which I deny not must needs import the priviledge of voting But the reason of their appearing there appears so often to be particular by commission from their Bishops and to supply their absence that there is no means in the world to darken this evidence for the superiority of Bishops For can it possibly be imagined that the Bishop should alwaies represent his Church in all Councils without choice or other act to depute him were he no more then the first of the Presbyters Is it not evident that the whole Church alwaies took him for the person without whom nothing could be done in the Church which whither in Council or out of Council never dealt with his Church but by him alwayes with his Church by his means Now for the authority of Councils thus constituted though for peace sake and because an end must be had the resolution of all Councils must come from number of Votes which swayes the determinations of all Assemblies yet there is thereupon a respect to be had to the Provinces or parts of the Church which those that vote do represent unlesse we will impute it to blame to those that suffer wrong if they submit not themselves to the determinations of those whom themselves have more right to oblige This consideration resolves into the grounds of the dependence of lesse Churches upon greater Churches all standing in the likelihood of propagating Christianity out of greater Cities into the lesse and of governing the Church in unity by submitting lesse residences to greater rather then on the contrary Which is such a principle that all men of capacity will acknowledge but all would not stand convict of had not the Church admitted it in effect from their founders before they were convict of the effect of it by humane foresight Upon this supposition the Church cannot properly be obliged by the plurality of Bishops who all have right to vote in Council but by the greatnesse and weight of the Churches for whom they serve concurring to a vote And hereof there be many traces in the Histories of the Church when they mention the deputation of some few Bishops representing numerous Provinces which for distance of place or other peremptory hinderances could not be present to frequent as others For can this be a reasonable cause why they should be obliged by the votes of those who were present in greater number The true reason why the decrees of Councils have not alwaies had nor ought alwayes to have the force and effect of definitive sentences but of â—â—rong prejudices to sway the consent of the whole Because there was never any Council so truly Generall that all parts concerned were represented by number of Voâ—es proportionable to the interesse of the Churches for whom they serve For certainly greater is the interest of greater Churches Which case whenâ—oever it comes to passe those that are not content have reason to allege that they are not to be tied by the vote of others but by their own consent And therefore the nnity of the Church requireth that there be just presumption upon the mater of decrees that they will be admitted by those who concurre not to them as no lesse for their good then for the good of the rest of the Church In the mean time the pretense of the Popes infinite Power remaines inconsistent with the very pretenâ—e of calling a Council For why so much trouble to obtain a vote that shall signifie nothing without his consent his single sentence obliging no lesse These are the grounds of that Aristocraty in which the Church was originally governed by the constitution of the Apostles unlesse we will think that a constant order viâ—â—ble in all the proceedings thereof could have come from the voluntary consâ—nt of Christendom not prevented by any obligation and drawing every part of it towards their severall interests which makes the obligation of Councils and their decrees harder to be obtained but when once obtained more firm and sure as not tending to destroy the originall way of maintaining Unity by the free correspondence and consent of those who are concerned but to shorten the trouble of obtaining it And if this were understood by the name of the Hierarchy why should not the simplicity of Apostolical Christianity own it Now because the greatnesse of Churches depended by the ground laid upon the greatnesse of the Cities which was in some sorâ— ambulatory till it was setled by the rule of the Empire begun by Adriane and compleated by Constantine my meaning will
Hereticks Of those whose Baptism S. Cyprian excepts against Epist ad Jubaianum it is manifest that the Church voiding the baptism of the Samosatenians by the Canon of Nicaea the baptism of other Hereticks by the Canons of Arles and Laodicea must needs make void the baptisms of the greatest part being evidently further removed from the truth which Christianity professeth than those whose baptism the said Canons disallow And though it is admitted according to the dictates of the School that these words I baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost contain a sufficient form of this Sacrament Yet that holdeth upon supposition that they who use it do admit the true sense of this word I baptize intending thereby to make him a Christian that is to oblige him to the profession of Christianity whom they baptize Which what reason can any man have to presume of in behalf of those who renounce their baptism once received in the Church of England to be baptized again For all reason of charitable presumptions ceaseth in respect of those who root up the ground thereof by Schism and by departing from the Unity of the Church And besides that wee do not see them declare any profession at all according to which they oblige themselves either to believe or live which is reason enough to oblige others not to take them for Christians not demanding to be taken for Christians by professing themselves Christians wee see the world over-spread with the vermine of the Enthusiasts who accepting of the Scriptures for Gods word upon a perswasion of the dictate of Gods Spirit not supposing the reason for which they are Christians do consequently believe as much in the dictates of the same that are not grounded upon the Word of God as upon those that are So that the imbracing of the Scriptures makes them no more Christians than Mahomets acknowledging Moses and Christ in the Alcoran makes him a Christian For whosoever is perswaded that hee hath the Spirit of God not supposing that it is given him in consideration that hee professeth Christianity supposing therefore the truth thereof in order of reason before hee receive the Spirit may as well as Mahomet in the Alcoran frame both the Old and New Testament to whatsoever sense his imagination which hee takes for Gods Spirit shall dictate This reason why it is necessary to follow the forms which the Church prescribes is more constraining in celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist as more nearly concerning the Christianity and salvation of Christians But yet it takes place also in the rest of those Offices whereby the Church pretends to conduct particular Christians in the way to life everlasting Hee that supposes that which I have proved how necessary it is that every sheep of the flock should acknowledg the common Pastor of his Church that the Pastor should acknowledg his flock upon notice of that Christianity which every one of them in particular professeth though hee may acknowledg that originally there is no cause why every Bishop should not prescribe himself the form of it in his own Church yet supposing that experience hath made it appear requisite for the preservation of Unity by Uniformity that the same form should be used must needs finde it requisite that it be prescribed by a Synod greater or less At such time as publick Penance was practiced in the Church when the Penitents were dismissed before the Eucharist with the Blessing and Prayers of the Church can it seem reasonable to any man that any Prayers should be used in celebrating an action of that consequence but those which the like authority prescribeth So much the more if it be found requisite that the practice of private Penance and of the inner Court of the Conscience be maintained in the Church For how should it be fit that every Priest that is trusted with the Power of the Keyes in this Court should exercice it in that form which his private fansy shall dictate Of Ordinations I say the same as of Confirmations Of the Visitation of the Sick and of Mariage as of Penance Onely considering that it is not likely that the reason whereupon the celebration of Mariage is an Office of the Church deriving from those limitations which the precept of our Lord hath fastned upon the Mariage of Christians should be so well understood by all that are to solemnize Matrimony as to do their Office both so as the validity of the contract and so as the performance of that Office which the parties undertake doth require In fine having showed that the Service of God upon the Regular Hours of the day is a Custom both grounded upon the Scripture and tending to the maintenance and advancement of Christian Piety It remains that I say that the form and measure of that devotion which all estates are to offer to God at those hours cannot otherwise be limited to the edification of all than by the determination of the Church They that please themselves with that monstrous imagination that no Christian is to be taught what or how to pray till hee finde himself inabled by the Spirit of God moving him to pray will easily finde that they can never induce the greater part of Christians to think themselves capable of discharging themselves to God in so high an Office as the sense of their Christianity requires They that observe the performance of those who take it upon them shall finde them sacrifice to God that which his Law forbiddeth the mater of their Prayers not consisting with our common Christianity For of a truth it is utterly unreasonable to imagine that God should grant inspirations of the Holy Ghost for such purposes as our common Christianity furnisheth And therefore the consequences of so false a presumption must be either ridiculous or pernicious Now if any man say that hee admits not the premises upon which I inferr these consequences it remaines that the dispute rest upon those premises and come not to these consequences Onely let him take notice that I have showed him the true consequences of my own premises which hee must reprove as inconsistent with Christianity if hee take upon him to blame the premises for any fault that hee findeth with their true consequences And to say truth as the substance and mater of Christianity is concerned in all these Offices though in some more in some less and by consequence in the form of celebrating them So the Unity of the Church is generally concerned in the form of celebrating them all in as much as any difference insisted upon as necessary and not so admitted by others is in point of fact a just occasion of division in the Church And therefore all little disputes of these particulars necessarily resort to the general Whether God hath commanded the Unity of the Church in the external communion of the members thereof or not Which having concluded by the premises I conceive I have founded
people by virtue of the meer act of assisting at the Sacrifice which hath been called opus operaetum or the very external work done without consideration without knowledge without any intention of doing that which he is to do in it that is of concurring every one for his share to the doing of the same Supposing alwayes that this Sacrifice consists in substituting the Body and Blood of Christ to be bodily present under the accidents of the elements the substance of them being abolished and ceasing to be there any more And not in offering and presenting the sacrifice of Christ crucified here now represented by this Sacrament unto God for obtaining the benefits of his passion in behalfe of his Church And this opinion I may safely say I know to be still maintained because I have heard it maintained though as I suppose by the more licentious and ignorant sort of Priests that it concerns not the people to consider to know to intend to joyn their devotions to the effecting of that which this Sacrament pretends But onely to mind their own Prayers assisting and accompanying that which the Priest doth with those affections which they came to Church with But can I therefore say that this is the doctrine of that Church because it allows such things to be taught and said without punishment or disgrace Surely he that peruses not onely the Testimonies which Doctor Field hath produced in the Appendix alleged afore to show that the true understanding of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist was maintained in the Church even till the Reformation together with the opinions of many Divines of credit in that Church and instructions of Catechisms and devotions that have been published since the Council of Trent shall easily conclude that it is allowed though not injoyned by the Church to oppose this palliating of abuses in the Church by opinions so prejudiciall to Christianity And without doubt those who pretend no more then to excuse the Church in not reforming the abuse of private Masses by saying that the Church commands them not nor forbids any man to communicate at any time but rather exhorts them to it are farr from saying that the people are no further concerned in the Mass then to assist it with their bodily presence and the generall good intentions affections which they come to Church with imploying themselvs in the mean time at their own devotions Though it is much to be feared that this opinion is farr the more popular The opposition which the Reformation hath occasioned and the countenance given by the Sea of Rome to those who are the most zealous and extreme in opposing the Hereticks bearing down the indeavours of more conscientious Priests to maintain more Christian opinions in the minds of their people In the mean time it is visible that the resolution of this point dependeth upon the true reason of offering the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist Which I have showed to consist in presenting unto God the Sacrifice of Christ crucified represented here now by the elements sacramentally changed by the act of consecrating into the body and blood of Christ by those Prayers whereby the Congregation which celebrateth this Sacrament intercedeth with God for their own necessities and the necessities of his Church For if the virtue and efficacy of these Prayers be grounded upon nothing else then the fidelity of the Congregation in standing to the Covenant of Baptism as if Christianity be true it consists in nothing else and if the celebration of the Eucharist be the profession of fidelity and perseverance in it what remaineth but that the efficacy of the Sacrifice depend upon the receiving of the Eucharist unlesse the efficacy and virtue of Christian mens Prayers can depend upon their perseverance in that Covenant which they refuse to renew and to professe perseverance in it that profession being no lesse necessary then the inward intention of persevering in the same For the receiving of the Eucharist is no lesse expresly a renewing of the Covenant of Baptism then being baptized is entering into it So that whosoever refuses the Communion of the Eucharist in as much as he refuses it refuses to stand to the Covenant of his Baptisme whereby he expects the world to come I say not therefore that whosoever communicates not in the Eucharist so oft as he hath means and opportunity to do it renounces his Christianity either expresly or by construction and consequence For how many of us may be prevented with the guilt of sinne so deeply staining the conscience that they cannot satisfie themselves in the competence of that conversion to God which they have time and reason and opportunity to exercise before the opportunity of communicating how many have need of the authority of the Church and the power of the Keys not onely foâ— their satisfaction but for their direction in washing their wedding Garments white again How many are so distracted and oppressed with businesse of this world that they cannot upon all opportunities retire their thoughts to that attention and devotion which the office requires How many though free of business which Christianity injoyneth are intangled with the cares and pleasures of the world though not so farr as to depart from the state of Grace yet further then the renewing of the Covenant of Grace importeth Be it therefore granted that there is a great allowance to be made in exacting the Apostolical Rule for all that are present to communicate But be it likewise considered what a pitifull excuse it is in behalfe of the Church that it forbiddeth no man to communicate that is prepared as the rules thereof require subsisting for no other purpose but to procure the people thereof to be prepared for the service of God whereof the principal part is this office But when it is further allowed to be taught and said that it concerns not Gods people to assist the office of the Church with their actuall intentions and devotions but with their bodily presence and the generall affection which they bring with them to Church what reason can be alleged why they should go to Church to cary those affections to the Congregations which are exercised at home with their particular devotions to the same purpose Nay to what purpose subsisteth the Communion of the Church if it subsist not in order to the service of God in the publick Assembly of his people the chief office whereof is taught to be of that nature that the presence of a Christian is of no effect to the purpose of it Or what reason can be alleged why the parts of Christendom should not provide for themselves by restoring the primitive practice of Christianity without the consent of the whole forbidding them to provide for themselves but not providing for them in maters so grossely and palpably concerning our common Christianity But having cautioned that the service of God and the Eucharist be in a language
by Hereticks nor Schismaticks So must he attribute the effect of the rest to the foundation of the Church the Prayers whereof God by founding it hath promised to hear being made according to that Christianity which the foundation thereof supposeth Let us consider whether extreme Unction may be or must be counted a Sacrament upon these termes or not for if that what question will remaine of the rest I conceive I have observed that which is very pertinent to the consideration of all the rest in showing that they are the solemnities wherewith some acts of that publick authority is exercised which the Church hath in respect of the members of it Onely in the Unction of the sick I have not found any act of authority distinct from that power of the Keyes whereby in extremity all are admitted to the communion of the Eucharist in hope of Gods mercy acknowledging the debt of that Penance remaining if they survive which must qualify them for it in the the judgement of the Church And the promise of forgiveness of sins annexed to it I have found to suppose that contrition which undertaketh the same in case a man survive Which notwithstanding whosoever acknowledges the Church cannot think the prayers of the Church needlesse in such an exigent But as for the ceremony of anointing with oyle I have found it in the premises to concern the recovery of bodily health by the practice of all ages that are found to have used it Though not pretending miraculous graces of curing diseases extant in the primitive times but onely that confidence which Gods generall promise to the Church groundeth of hearing the prayers thereof even for temporall blessings so farre as the exception to it which Christianity maketh shall allow It was thought fit to lay aside this ceremony at the Reformation least the Church should seem to pretend a promise the effect whereof being temporall and visible could not be made to appear Which might seem a disparagement to our common Christianity But there have not wanted Doctors of the Reformation Bucer by name that have acknowledged nor will any man of a peaceable judgement make question that the ceremony might have been retained at the visitation of the sick Which he that would have the Church lay aside because the Church of Rome useth this ceremony at it he would have the Church be no Church because the Church of Rome is one For as the office of the Church can never be more necessary then in that extremity to procure that disposition qualifying for pardon which then it is not too late to procure So can no ceremony be filter then annointing with oil to signify that health of body which the Church chearfully prayeth for on behalf of them whom she promiseth remission of sinne That health of minde which the present agony so peremptorily requireth Supposing then the constitution of the Church such that the ministery thereof must needs be thought sufficient meanes to procure salvation for the members of it And then supposing the Church so constituted injoyne prayer to be made for the sicke to whose reconcilement the keyes thereof are applied anointing them with oyl to signify that health of body and mind which is prayed for So farre am I from dividing the Church in that regard that I acknowledge it may be very well counted one of the Sacraments of the Church in that case To wit as a ceremony appointed by the Church signifying that health which the Church rightly using the Power which it is trusted with appointeth to be prayed for in that case To prove Marriage to be a Sacrament it is well known how the text of S. Paul is alledged Ephes V. 32. Sacramentum hoc magnum est This is a great mystery but I mean concerning Christ and the Church But Saint Paul saith not that the mariage of Christians is a sacrament but that the mariage of Adam and Eve was a great mystery As indeed it was if the Apostle say true that it figured the marriage of our Lord Christ with his Church and that therefore the woman was taken out of the man as Christians are the bimbs of Christ and therefore wives are to be subject to their husbands as the Church to Christ True it is that seing mariage in Paradise was made an inseparable conjunction of one with one with an intent that it should figure the inseparable conjunction between our L. Christ and the congregation of them whom he foreseeth that they shall persevere in that regard the marriage of Christians also being by our Lord reformed to the first institution of Paradise cannot chuse but signify the same though now in being Whereas the marriage of Adam was a mystery for signifying the same to be But supposing all this and not supposing an Order in the Church for the blessing of marriage as a solemnity prescribed by the Church I know not whether there could be cause to reckon marriage among the Sacraments of the Church all the rest which pretend to tha quality being offices of the Church to be performed with some solemnity Whereas supposing something peculiar to the marriage of Christians in regard whereof it is to be celebrated with the solemne Blessing of the Church there is no cause why under the equivocation premised it may not be counted among the Sacraments of the Church For is there any question to be made that Christians submitting themselves to marry according to the Law of Christ with an intent not onely to keep faith to one another according to that which is between Christ and his Church but to breed children for the Church And so submitting unto the Church and those limits wherewith the Church boundeth the exercise of Gods Law for maintaining of unity in the Church may promise themselves the effect of that Blessing which the Church joynes them with Supposing them qualified for the common blessings of Christians and the Church formed by God with a promise of his blessings What doubt can be made that the Blessing shall have effect which the Church joynes them with But what assurance can be had of the effect of that Blessing without it supposing the Church and supposing the blessing of marriage appointed by the Church I have showed the ground whereupon the allowance of mrriage among Christians is necessarily part of the interest of the Church I have showed that in Ordination in Confirmation in Penance as well as in Baptisme and in the Eucharist the Church exerciseth some power and authority which she is trusted with by God The blessing of mariage what is it but the marke of that authority in allowing the mariages of Christians which the Church thereby exerciseth If Ignatius and Tertullian require the consent of the Church to the mariages of Christians it must needes be inferred from thence that this consent was declared by the blessing of the Church as the Power of ordaining and the Power of absolving is exercised with blessing that is praying for
The image of Christ therefore and his true Crosse with the honour due to God alone though in reference to God Had the Acts of the Councile been known in the West as they would have been had it been admitted these men would never have gone about to bring in an opinion so extravagant from the doctrine of the Councile Which shewes plainly that it is the See of Rome that hath imployed the whole interest thereof right or wrong to give that force to the decree which of it self it had not You have besides a work of Jonas Bishop of Orleans against Claudius Bishop of Turin you have the testimony of Walafridus Strabo allowing images but disallowing all worship of them Nay in the time of Fredrick Barbarussa Nicetas relating how he took Philippopolis notes that the Armenians stirred not for the taking of the City having confidence in the Almans as agreeing with them in religion because neither of them worshipped images De Imperio Isaaci Angeli II. Therefore in removing the force of this decree it is not the authority of the whole Church but the will of the See of Rome that is transgressed And that power of the See of Rome by which this is done is not that regular preeminence thereof over other Churches which cannot decree any thing in the matter of a generall Councile but by a generall Councile either expresly assembled or included in the consent of those Churches whereof it consists But of that nothing is or can be alledged It remaines therefore that it is come to effect by that infinite power thereof which the whole Church acknowledgeth not and therefore in effect by the meanes which it imployeth to justify such a pretense I say no more of the ceremonies of Gods service I maintaine no further effect of them then the ground for them warrants The composition of our nature makes them fit and necessary meanes to procure that attention of mind that devotion of Spirit which God is to be served with even in private much more at the publicke and solemn assemblies of the Church Whatsoever is appointed by the Church for the circumstance furniture solemnity or ceremony of Gods service by virtue of the trust reposed in it is thereby to be accounted holy and so used and respected The memories of Gods Saints and Martyrs are fit occasions to determine the time and place and other circumstances of it And the honour done them in recording their acts and sufferings with the conversation of our Lord upon earth whether out of the Scriptures or otherwise a fit meanes to render his solemne service recommendable for the reverence which it is performed with If in stead of circumstances and instruments the Saints of God or Images or any creature of God whatsoever become the object of that worship for which Churches were built or for which Christians assemble by that meanes there may be roome to let in that Idolatry at the back door which Christianity shutteth out at the great gate Whether or no it be a fault in Christians that they cannot do violence to their senses and count those things holy as instruments of Gods service because so they should be which they are convinced in common reason that they are used to his disservice I dispute not now But without dispute woe to them by whom offences come And they who prosecute offences given without measure are they by whom offences come The charge of superstition is a goodly pretense for abolishing ceremonies But when not onely the reverence of Gods service but also the offices of it are abolished withall then is there cause to say that the service of God it selfe seeems superstitious To fit and sleep out a sermon or censure a prayer is more for a mans ease then to fall down on his knees to humble his soul at Gods footstool and to withdraw his minde from the curiosity of knowledge or language to the sense of Gods majesty and his own misery It is then for our ease but not for Gods service that the ceremonies thereof should be counted superstitious CHAP. XXXI The ground for a Monasticall life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it The nature and intent of it renders it subordinate to the Clergy How farre the single life of the Clergy hath been a Law to the Church Inexecution of the Canons for it Nullity of the proceeddings of the Church of Rome in it The interest of the People in the acts of the Church And in the use of the Scriptures I Cannot make an end by distinguishing the bounds of Ecclesiasticall and Secular power in Church matters till I have resolved whether or no the body of it the materials of which it consists be sufficiently distinguished by the estates of Clergy and People Or whether there be a third estate of Monkery constituted by Gods Law intitling the Church to a right in those who professe it upon the ground of Christianity and in order to the effect of it For the resolution hereof opens the ground as well of that reverence which the people owe the Clergy as of that instruction and good example which the Clergy owe the people the neglect whereof is that which forfeiteth the very being of the Church that is the unity of it I am not now to dispute whether it be lawfull for a Christian to vow to God the vow of continence or not having proved in the second book that it is And showed in what sense the perfection of a Christian may be understood to consist in the professing and performing of it The case of Ananias and Sapphira hath been drawn into consequence not onely by Saint Basil as I showed you in the first book but also by Saint Gregory of Rome Epist I. 33. quoted by Gratiane XVII Quaest I. Cap. III. though acknowledging that community of goods was a part of the profession of the Christians then at Jerusalem it cannot be said that they who professed this community of goods did professe that which is strictly called Monkery For they letted not to continue married all Monks professing continence But I have besides made it to appear that all were not tied then at Jerusalem to give up all their goods to the stock of the Church but onely what the common Christianity should prompt every man to contribute to the subsistence of the Church and Christianity which what it required was visible But I do not therefore yield that the argument is not of force so far as the case and therefore the reason drawn from it takes place All Christians consecrate themselves to the service of God by being Baptized and made Christians By that they stand obliged to consecrate their goods to the subsistence of his Church as the necessities thereof become visible If it appear to be part of this Christianity to consecrate a mans self to God further by professing such a
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
make good that protection which they undertook by the loyalty of them that injoyed it things must by consequence continue in this estate But when the removing of the Germane power from the line of Charles the great had done the operation of rendring them who succeeded obnoxious at home to them by whose faction they obtained it there was no great likelyhood that the obedience of strangers and Italians accustomed to changing of masters should continue This was the time that Gregory VII Pope and his successors took when the power of the Emperours in disposing the Churches of Germany by the right of investiture whatsoever in point of right it signified must needs render their interest envious as well at home as at Rome whatsoever occasions of discontent besides an Elective Crowne might produce For Charles the great as our William of Malmsbury noteth had heaped wealth and power upon the Churches by which he planted Christianity in Germany as placing a greater confidence of Loyalty in them then in any estate of his subjects besides And the example of that credit which the usurpation of Pepin had received by the allowance of the Pope seemed to justify any insurrection either of Italians or Germanes to which the Pope was a party For as to the issue of those Warres though the Pope got no more then reducing the adverse party to composition because he could not pretend any dominion for his Church by conquering yet must it needs turn to the advantage of his authority that had the greatest stroke in moving that warre which others made This is the story the morall whereof became the theme for those that undertook to preach the Popes temporall power over Soveraignties For successe to them that consult not with their Christianity is a plausible argument of right But the Interest of the Pope in Soveraignties having swelled so farre beyond the whole capacity of the Church the bad consequence of necessity followes that his originall power in the Church must needs swell so farre beyond the bounds as of regular to become infinite I will not now contend that the subjects of the Empire in Italy fell away from it because they thought themselves free of their allegiance by the excommunicating of the Emperor Leo Isaurus There is reason enough to think that the See of Rome cried up the worship of images contrary to the moderation of Saint Gregory some hundred years afore out of hope to advance their own power by impairing the rights of their Soveraigne But I charge no more then they pretend And there is appearance for another plea which is want of protection from the Empire at such time as recourse was had to the protection of the French But the vexation of the Germane Emperours manifestly pretended the temporall effect of the Popes excommunication in dissolving the bond of allegiance wherein the temporal power of the Pope consisteth The effect of which being such as it was it is the lesse marvaile that the rest of the Soveraignities of Christendome have entered into capitulations with the Pope such as the Concordates which I spoke of afore with France whereby to secure the government of their people in peace on that side they make the Popes pretense of power without bounds in Ecclesiasticall matters of law to their respective Dominions and Territories It is strange to him that considers without prejudice how they who imagine the Pope to be Antichrist could make their pretense popular that Episcopacy is the support of Antichrist For his unlimitted power in Church maters is but the regular power of all Churches united in one It is plainly made up for the See of Rome of feathers plucked from every Church So that if Episcopacy be the support of Antichrist then do their rights maintaine his usurpation by whom they are destroyed Did the Soveraignities of Christendome maintaine the Churches of their respective dominions in that right which the reguâ—ar constitution of the Church settleth upon them and that is it which the protection of the Church signifyeth it would soon appeare that he is Antichrist if Antichrist he be to their prejudice and disadvantage The See of Rome having got a decree at the Councile of Trent scornes any termes but absolute submission to it But the end of such an intestine warre by conquest as it would be extreamly mischievous bearing all down before the pretense of infallibility which must then prevaile So findes hinderances answerable to the advantages which the disunion of the adverse party ministreth The animosities of Potentates that adhere to it have made it visible that their interest consists in hindering the reunion of the Reformation to the Church of Rome And the pretense of dissolving allegiance by the sentence of excommunication is become no way considerable by the subsistence of them who regard it not Nor is the advantage which the favour thereof lends the armes of those Princes who tye themselves the most strictly to the interests of it any more considerable Whether or no it be time for them to bethink themselves that it were better for them to injoy the unquestionable title of a true Church and of the chief Church of Christendome which it is absolutely necessary for all Churches to hold communion with the common Christianity being secured then catching at the disposing of all mens Christianity without rendring any account to the Church which how dangerous for their own salvation is it to hang the unity of the Church meerly upon the interest of the World which how prejudiciall is it to the salvation of Gods people not upon the interest of Christianity themselves must judge This I am sure If Christian Powers maintaine their due right and title of Protectors of Gods Church it is the regular constitution thereof which they must maintaine The exemption of Monasticall Orders and Universities from the jurisdiction of their Ordinaries under whom they stand and the Synods to which they resort the reservation of cases dispensations in Canons provisions of Churches and the rest of those chanels by which power as well as wealth is drained from all Churches to Rome must needs be stopped up at least for the greatest part if Christian Soveraigns did protect the Church of their dominions in the right of ending causes that concern not the whole Church at home This were such a ground of confidence between Soveraignes and the Clergy of their dominions that it would be very hard to imagine any interest considerable to ingage against that interest by the prejudicing whereof neither of them could expect any advantage And this confidence the meanes to restore and to maintain that intercourse and correspondence between the Churches of severall Soveraignties by which when all Churches at least as many as easily outweighed the rest were under the Romane Empire the Unity of the Church was maintained without that recourse to temporall power which made it infinite Nor would there remaine any just ground of jealousie between the Pope and the
not that which is invisible by their authority in point of right For want of this authority whatsoever is done by virtue of that usurpation being voide before God I will not examine whether the forme wherein they execute the Offices of the Church which they thinke fit to exercise agree with the ground and intent of the Church or not Only I charge a peculiar nullity in their consecrating the Eucharist by neglecting the Prayer for making the elements the body and blood of Christ without which the Church never thought it could consecrate the Eucharist Whether having departed from the Church Presbyteries and Congregations scorne to learne any part of their duty from the Church least that might seeme to weaken the ground of their departure Or whether they intend that the elements remaine meere signes to strengthen mens faith that they are of the number of the elect which they are before they be consecrated as much as afterwards The want of Consecration rendering it no Sacrament that is ministred the ministring of it upon a ground destructive to Christianity renders it much more On the other side the succession of Pastors from the Apostles or those who received their authority from the Apostles is taken for a sufficient presumption on behalfe of the Church of Rome that it is Catholick But I have showed that the Tradition of Faith and the authority of the Scriptures which containe it is more ancient then the being of the Church and presupposed to the same as a condition upon which it standeth That the authority of the Apostles and the Powers left by them in and with the Church the one is originally the effective cause the other immediately the Law by which it subsisteth and in which the government thereof consisteth That the Church hath Power in Lawes of lesse consequence though given the Church by the Apostles though recorded by the Scriptures where that change which succeeds in the state of Christendome renders them uselesse to preserve the unity of the Church presupposing the Faith in order to the publick service of God But neither can the Church have power in the faith to add to take away to change any thing in that profession of Christianity wherein the salvation of all Christians consisteth and which the being of the Church presupposeth Nor in that act of the Apostles authority whereby the unity of the Church was founded and setled Nor in that service of God for which it was provided There is therefore something else requisite to evidence the Church of Rome to be the true Church exclusive to the Reformation then the visible succession of Pastors though that by the premises be one of the Laws that concurre to make every Church a Catholicke Church The Faith upon which the powers constituted by the Apostles in which the forme of government by which the service of God for which it subsisteth If these be not maintained according to the Scriptures interpreted by the originall and Catholicke Tradition of the Church it is in vaine to alledge the personall succession of Pastors though that be one ingredient in the government of it without which neither could the Faith be preserved nor the service of God maintained though with it they might possibly faile of being preserved and maintained for a mark of the true Church The Preaching of that Word and that Ministring of the Sacraments understanding by that particular all the offices of Gods publicke service in the Church which the Tradition of the Whole limiteth the Scriptures interpreted thereby to teach is the onely marke as afore to make the Church visible To come then to our case Is it therefore become warrantable to communicate with the Church of Rome because it is become unwarrantable to communicate with Presbyteries or Congregations This is indeed the rest of the difficulty which it is the whole businesse of this Book to resolve To which I must answer that absolutely the case is as it was though comparatively much otherwise For if the State of Religion be the same at Rome but in England farre worse then it was the condition upon which communion with the Church of Rome is obtained is never a whit more agreeable to Christianity then afore but it is become more pardonable for him that sees what he ought to avoide not to see what he ought to follow He that is admitted to communion with the Church of Rome by the Bull of profession of Faith inacted by Pius IV. Pope not by the Councile of Trent besides many particulars there added to the Creed which whether true or false according to the premises he sweares to as much as to his Creed at length professes to admit without doubting whatsoever else the sacred Canons and generall Councils especially the Synode of Trent hath delivered decreed and declared damning and rejecting as anathema whatsoever the Church damneth and rejecteth for heresie under anathema But whether the whole Church or the present Church the oath limiteth not Here is no formall and expresse profession that a man believes the present Church to be Infallible And therefore it was justly alledged in the first Booke that â—he Church hath never enjoyned the professing of it But here is a just ground for a reasonable Construction that it is hereby intended to be exacted because a man swears to admit the acts of Counciles as he does to admit his Creed and the holy Scriptures Nor can there be a more effectuall challenge of that priviledge then the use of it in the decree of the Councile that the Scriptures which we call Apocrypha be admitted with the like reverence as the unquestionable Canonicall Scriptures being all injoyned to be received as all of one rancke Which before the decree had never been injoyned to be received but with that difference which had alwaies been acknowledged in the Church For this act giving them the authority of prophetical Scripture inspired by God which they had not afore though it involve a nullity because that which was not inspired by God to him that writ it when he writ it can never have the authority of inspired by God because it can never become inspired by God Nor can become known that it was indeed inspired by God not having been so received from the begining without revelation anew to that purpose yet usurpeth Infallibility because it injoyneth that which no authority but that which immediate revelation createth can injoyne Further the decree of the Councile concerning justification involving a mistake in the terme and understanding by it the infusion of grace whereby the righteousnesse that dwelleth in a Christian is formally and properly that which settles him in the state of righteous before God not fundamentally and metonymically that which is required in him that is estated in the same by God in consideration of our Lord Christ Though I maintaine that this decree prejudiceth not the substance of Christianity Yet must it not be allowed to expresse the true reason by which it