expects our duty And if the spirit of prayer be of greater consequence than all the works God hath wrought in us besides and hath the promise of a special prerogative let the first be proved and the second be shown in any good Record and then I will confess the difference Sect. 20. THE Parallel of this Argument I the rather urge because I find praying in the Holy Ghost joyned with graces which are as much Gods gifts and productions of the spirit as any thing in the world and yet which the Apostle presses upon us as duties and things put into our power to be improved by our industry and those are faith in which I before instanced and charity But ye beloved building up your selves on your most holy faith praying in the Holy Ghost keep your selves in the love of God All of the same consideration Faith and Prayer and Charity all gifts of the Spirit and yet build up your selves in faith and keep your selves in love and therefore by a parity of reason improve your selves in the spirit of Prayer that is God by his Spirit having supplied us with matter let our industry and co-operations per modum naturae improve these gifts and build upon this foundation Sect. 21. THUS the Spirit of God is called the Spirit of adoption the Spirit of counsel the Spirit of grace the Spirit of meekness the Spirit of wisdom And without doubt he is the fountain of all these to us all and that for ever and yet it cannot reasonably be supposed but that we must stir up the graces of God in us co-operate with his assistances study in order to counsel labour and consider in order to wisdom give all diligence to make our calling and election sure in order to our adoption in which we are sealed by the Spirit Now these instances are of gifts as well as graces and since the days of wonder and need of miracles is expired there is no more reason to expect inspiration of gifts than of graces without our endeavours It concerns the Church rather to have these secured than those and yet the Spirit of God puts it upon the condition of our co-operation for according to the Proverb of the old Moralists Deus habet sinum facilem non perforâ—tum Gods bosom is apt and easie to the emission of graces and assistances but it is not loose and ungirt something must be done on our part we must improve the talents and swell the bank for if either we lay them up in a napkin or spend them suppress the Spirit or extinguish it we shall dearly account for it Sect. 22. IN the mean time if we may lose the gifts by our own fault we may purchase them by our diligence if we may lessen them by our incuriousness we may increase them by study if we may quench the spirit then also we may re-enkindle it all which are evident probation that the Holy Ghost gives us assistances to improve our natural powers and to promote our acquisite and his aids are not inspirations of the habit or infusions of a perfect gift but a subliming of what God gave us in the stock of nature and art to make it in a sufficient order to an end supernatural and divine Sect. 23. THE same doctrine we are taught by S. Pauls exhortation to Timothy Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecie with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery And again stir up the gift of God which is in thee by the laying on of my hâ—nds If there be any gifts of the Holy Ghost and spiritual influences dispensed without our co-operation and by inspiration of the intire power it is in ordination and the persons so ordained are most likely to receive the gift of prayer if any such thing be for the edification of the Church they being the men appointed to intercede and to stand between God and the people and yet this gift of God even in those times when they were dispensed with miracle and assistances extraordinary were given as all things now are given by the means also of our endeavour and was capable of improvement by industry and of defailance by neglect and therefore much rather is it so now in the days of ordinary ministration and common assistances Sect. 24. AND indeed this argument beside the efficacy of its perswasion must needs conclude against the Men to whom these adversaria are addressed because themselves call upon their Disciples to exercise the gift of prayer and offer it to consideration that such exercising it is the way to better it and if natural endowments and artificial endeavours are the way to purchase new degrees of it it were not amiss they did consider a little before they begin and did improve their first and smallest capacities before they ventured any thing in publick by way of address to Almighty God For the first beginnings are certainly as improvable as the next degrees and it is certain they have more need of it as being more imperfect and rude Therefore when ever Gods Spirit hath given us any capacities or assistances any documents motions desires or any aids whatsoever they are therefore given us with a purpose we should by our industry skill and labour improve them because without such co-operation the intention is made void and the work imperfect Sect. 25. AND this is exactly the doctrine I plainly gather from the objected words of S. Paul The Spirit helpeth our infirmities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is in the Greek collaborantem adjuvat It is an ingeminate expression of our labours And that supposes us to have faculties capable of improvement and an obligation to labour and that the effect of having the gift of prayer depends upon the mutual course that is upon God blessing our powers and our endeavours And if this way the Spirit performs his promise sufficiently and does all that we need and all that he ties himself to he that will multiply his hopes farther than what is sufficient or what is promised may possibly deceive himself but never deceive God and make him multiply and continue miracles to justifie his fancy Sect. 26. BETTER it is to follow the Scriptures for our guide as in all things else so in this particular Ephes. 6.17 18. Take the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit The word of God is the sword of the spirit praying in the Spirit is one way of using it indeed the only way that he here specifies Praying in the Spirit then being the using of this Sword and this Sword being the word of God it follows evidently that praying in the spirit is praying in or according to the word of God that is in the directions rules and expresses of the Word of God that is of the holy Scriptures For we have many infirmities and we need the spirit to
thing their appointing Rulers in every Church their Synodal Decrees de suffocato Sanguine and letters missive to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia their excommunications of Hymeneus and Alexander and the incestuous Corinthian their commanding and requiring obedience of their people in all things as Saint Paul did of his subjects of Corinth and the Hebrews by precept Apostolical their threatning the Pastoral rod their calling Synods and publick Assemblies their ordering Rites and Ceremonies composing a Symbol as the tessera of Christianity their publick reprehension of Delinquents and indeed the whole execution of their Apostolate is one continued argument of their superintendency and superiority of jurisdiction SECT III. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors in the Apostolate THIS Power so delegated was not to expire with their Persons For when the Great Shepherd had reduced his wandring Sheep into a fold he would not leave them without guides to govern them so long as the Wolf might possibly prey upon them and that is till the last separation of the Sheep from the Goats And this Christ intimates in that promise Ero vobiscum Apostolis usque ad consummationem seculi Vobiscum not with your persons for they dyed long ago but vobiscum vestri similibus with Apostles to the end of the world And therefore that the Apostolate might be successive and perpetual Christ gave them a power of ordination that by imposing hands on others they might impart that power which they received from Christ. For in the Apostles there was something extraordinary something ordinary Whatsoever was extraordinary as immediate mission unlimited jurisdiction and miraculous operations that was not necessary to the perpetual Regiment of the Church for then the Church should fail when these priviledges extraordinary did cease It was not therefore in extraordinary powers and priviledges that Christ promised his perpetual assistance not in speaking of tongues not in doing miracles whether in materiâ censurae as delivering to Satan or in materiâ misericordiae as healing sick people or in re naturali as in resisting the venome of Vipers and quenching the violence of flames in these Christ did not promise perpetual assistance for then it had been done and still these signs should have followed them that believe But we see they do not It follows then that in all the ordinary parts of power and office Christ did promise to be with them to the end of the world and therefore there must remain a power of giving faculty and capacity to persons successively for the execution of that in which Christ promised perpetual assistance For since this perpetual assistance could not be meant of abiding with their persons who in few years were to forsake the world it must needs be understood of their function which either it must be succeeded to or else it was as temporary as their persons But in the extraordinary priviledges of the Apostles they had no successors therefore of necessity must be constituted in the ordinary office of Apostolate Now what is this ordinary Office Most certainly since the extraordinary as is evident was only a help for the founding and beginning the other are such as are necessary for the perpetuating of a Church Now in clear evidence of sence these offices and powers are Preaching Baptizing Consecrating Ordaining and Governing For these were necessary for the perpetuating of a Church unless men could be Christians that were never Christned nourished up to life without the Eucharist become Priests without calling of God and ordination have their sins pardoned without absolution be members and parts and sons of a Church whereof there is no coadunation no authority no Governour These the Apostles had without all question and whatsoever they had they had from Christ and these were eternally necessary these then were the offices of the Apostolate which Christ promised to assist for ever and this is that which we now call the Order and Office of Episcopacy SECT IV. This succession into the ordinary office of Apostolate is made by Bishops FOR although Deacons and Priests have part of these Offices and therefore though in a very limited sence they may be called successores Apostolorum to wit in the power of Baptizing consecrating the Eucharist and Preaching an excellent example whereof though we have none in Scripture yet if I mistake him not we have in Ignatius calling the Colledge of Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Combination of Apostles yet the Apostolate and Episcopacy which did communicate in all the power and offices which are ordinary and perpetual are in Scripture clearly all one in ordinary ministration and their names are often used in common to signifie exactly the same ordinary function 1. The name was borrowed from the Prophet David in the prediction of the Apostasie of Judas and Surrogation of Saint Matthias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His Bishoprick that is his Apostolate let another take The same word according to the translation of the seventy is used by the Prophet Isaiah in an Evangelical prediction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will give thy Princes in peace and thy Bishops in righteousness Principes Ecclesiae vocat futuros Episcopos saith Saint Hierom herein admiring Gods Majesty in the destination of such Ministers whom himself calls Princes And to this issue it is cited by Saint Clement in his famous Epistle to the Corinthians But this is no way unusual in Scripture For 2. Saint James the Brother of our Lord is called an Apostle and yet he was not in the number of the twelve but he was Bishop of Jerusalem First That Saint James was called an Apostle appears by the testimony of Saint Paul But other Apostles saw I none save James the Lords Brother Secondly That he was none of the twelve appears also because among the twelve Apostles there were but two James's The son of Alpheus and James the son of Zebedee the brother of John But neither of these was the James whom Saint Paul calls the Lords Brother And this Saint Paul intimates in making a distinct enumeration of all the appearances which Christ made after the Resurrection First to Cephas then to the twelve then to the 500. Brethren then to James then to all the Apostles So that here Saint James is reckoned distinctly from the twelve and they from the whole Colledge of the Apostles for there were it seems more of that dignity than the twelve But this will also safely rely upon the concurrent testimony of Hegesippus Clement Eusebius Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Hierom. Thirdly That Saint James was Bishop of Jerusalem and therefore called an Apostle appears by the often commemoration of his presidency and singular eminency in holy Scripture Priority of order is mentioned Gal. 2. even before Saint Peter who yet was primus Apostolorum naturâ unus homo Gratiâ unus Christianus abundantiore gratiâ unus idémque primus Apostolus as S. Augustin yet in his own
of Ephesus by S. Paul and there enthron'd To this purpose are those compellations and titles of Bishopricks usually in antiquity S. Basil calls a Bishoprick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Theodoret. An Apostolical presidency The summe is the same which S. Peter himself taught the Church as S. Clement his scholar or some other Primitive man in his name reports of him Episcopos ergo vicem Apostolorum gerere Dominum docuisse dicebat reliquorum Discipulorum vicem tenere Presbyteros debere insinuabat He Peter said that our Lord taught that Bishops were to succeed in the place of the Apostles and Presbyters in the place of the Disciples Who desires to be farther satisfied concerning Catholick consent for Bishops succession to Apostles in their order and ordinary office he may see it in Pacianus the renowned Bishop of Barcinona in S. Gregory S. Iohn Damascen in S. Sextus the first his second decretal Epistle and most plentifully in S. Caelestine writing to the Ephesine Council in the Epistle of Anacletus de Patriarchis Primatibus c. In Isidore and in Venerable Bede His words are these Sicut duodecim Apostolos formam Episcoporum exhibere simul demonstrare nemo est qui dubitet sic 72 figuram Presbyterorum gessisse sciendum est tametsi primis Ecclesiae temporibus ut Apostolica Scriptura testis est utrique Presbyteri utrique vocabantur Episcopi quorum unum scientiae maturitatem aliud industriam curae Pastoralis significat Sunt ergo jure Divino Episcopi à Presbyteris praelatione distincti As no man doubts but Apostles were the order of Bishops so the 72 of Presbyters though at first they had names in common Therefore Bishops by Divine right are distinct from Presbyters and their Prelates or Superiours SECT XI And particularly of S. Peter TO the same issue drive all those testimonies of Antiquity that call all Bishops ex aequo successors of S. Peter So S. Cyprian Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere observare debemus Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro ego tibi dico Quia tu es Petrus c. Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur c. When our B. Saviour was ordering his Church and instituting Episcopal dignity he said to Peter thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church Hence comes the order of Bishops and the constitution or being of the Church that the Church be founded upon Bishops c. The same also S. Jerome intimates Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not a small thing to stand in the place of Paul to obtain the degree of Peter so he while he disswades Heliodorus from taking on him the great burden of the Episcopal office Pasce oves meas said Christ to Peter and feed the flock of God which is amongst you said S. Peter to the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia Similia enim Successoribus suis Petrus scripsit praecepta saith Theodoret. S. Peter gave the same precepts to his successors which Christ gave to him And S. Ephrem speaking of S. Basil the Bishop of Caesarea Cappadocia Et sicut rursus Petrus Ananiam Saphiram fraudantes de precio agri enecavit ita Basilius locum Petri obtinens ejúsque pariter authoritatem libertatémque participans suam ipsius promissionem fraudantem Valentem redarguit ejúsque filium morte mulctavit As S. Peter did to Ananias and Saphira so Basil did to Valens and his Son for the same delinquency for he had the place liberty and authority of S. Peter Thus Gaudentius of Brixia calls S. Ambrose the Successor of S. Peter and Gildas sirnamed the wise saith that all evil Bishops whatsoever do with unhallowed and unclean feet usurp the seat of S. Peter But this thing is of Catholick belief and of this use If the order and office of the Apostolate be eternal and to be succeded in and this office Superior to Presbyters and not only of Divine institution but indeed the only order which can clearly show an immediate Divine commission for its power and authority as I have proved of the function Apostolical then those which do succeed the Apostles in the ordinary office of Apostolate have the same institution and authority the Apostles had as much as the successors of the Presbyters have with the first Presbyters and perhaps more For in the Apostolical ordinations they did not proceed as the Church since hath done Themselves had the whole Priesthood the whole commission of the Ecclesiastical power and all the offices Now they in their ordaining assistant Ministers did not in every Ordination give a distinct order as the Church hath done since the Apostles For they ordained some to distinct offices some to particular places some to one part some to another part of Clerical imployment as S. Paul who was an Apostle yet was ordained by imposition of hands to go to the Churches of the Uncircumcision so was Barnabas S. John and James and Cephas to the Circumcision and there was scarce any publick design or grand imployment but the Apostolick men had a new ordination to it a new imposition of hands as is evident in the Acts of the Apostles So that the Apostolical ordinations of the inferiour Clergy were only a giving of particular commissions to particular men to officiate such parts of the Apostolical calling as they would please to imploy them in Nay sometimes their ordinations were only a delivering of Jurisdiction when the persons ordained had the order before as it is evident in the case of Paul and Barnabas Of the same consideration is the institution of Deacons to spiritual offices and it is very pertinent to this Question For there is no Divine institution for these rising higher than Apostolical ordinance and so much there is for Presbyters as they are now authorized for such power the Apostles gave to Presbyters as they have now and sometimes more as to Judas and Silas and divers others who therefore were more than meer Presbyters as the word is now used * The result is this The office and order of a Presbyter is but part of the office and order of an Apostle so is a Deacon a lesser part so is an Evangelist so is a Prophet so is a Doctor so is a helper or a Surrogate in Government but these will not be called orders every one of them will not I am sure at least not made distinct orders by Christ for it was in the Apostles power to give any one or all these powers to any one man or to distinguish them into so many men as there are offices or to unite more or fewer of them All these I say
destination for divine service and in a word by his authority to establish such Discipline and Rituals as himself did judge to be most for edification and ornament of the Church of God For he that was appointed by S. Paul to rectifie and set things in order was most certainly by him supposed to be the Judge of all the obliquities which he was to rectifie 2. The next work is Episcopal too and it is the ordaining Presbyters in every City Not Presbyters collectively in every City but distributively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 City by City that is Elders in several Cities one in one City many in many For by these Elders are certainly meant Bishops Of the identity of Names I shall afterwards give an account but here it is plain S. Paul expounds himself to mean Bishops 1. In terms and express words To ordain Elders in every City If any be the husband of one wife c. For a Bishop must be blameless That is the Elders that you are to ordain in several cities must be blameless for else they must not be Bishops 2. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot hinder this exposition for S. Peter calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and S. John Presbyter electae Dominae and Presbyter delectissimo Gaio Such Presbyters as these were Apostolical and that 's as much as Episcopal to be sure 3. S. Paul adds farther a Bishop must be blameless as the steward of God Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler S. Paul's Bishop is Gods steward and Gods steward is the ruler of his houshold says our blessed Saviour himself and therefore not a meer Presbyter amongst whom indeed there is a parity but no superintendency of Gods making 4. S. Paul does in the sequel still qualifie his Elders or Bishops with more proprieties of rulers A Bishop must be no striker not given to wine They are exactly the requisites which our blessed Saviour exacts in his Stewards or Rulers accounts If the Steward of the house will drink and be drunk and beat his fellow servants then the Lord of that servant shall come and divide him his portion with unbelievers The steward of the houshold this Ruler must not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more must a Bishop he must not be given to wine no striker Neque enim pugilem describit sermo Apostolicus sed Pontificem instituit quid facere non debeat saith S. Hierome still then these are the Rulers of the Church which S. Titus was to ordain and therefore it is required should Rule well his own house for how else shall he take charge of the Church of God implying that this his charge is to rule the house of God 5. The reason why S. Paul appointed him to ordain these Bishops in cities is in order to coercive jurisdiction because many unruly and vain talkers were crept in verse 10. and they were to be silenced 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their mouths must be stopped Therefore they must be such Elders as had superiority of jurisdiction over these impertinent Preachers which to a single Presbyter either by Divine or Apostolical institution no man will grant and to a Colledge of Presbyters S. Paul does not intend it for himself had given it singly to S. Titus For I consider Titus alone had coercive Jurisdiction before he ordained these Elders be they Bishops be they Presbyters The Presbyters which were at Crete before his coming had not Episcopal power or coercive Jurisdiction for why then was Titus sent As for the Presbyters which Titus ordained before his ordaining them to be sure they had no power at all they were not Presbyters If they had a coercive Jurisdiction afterwards to wit by their ordination then Titus had it before in his own person for they that were there before his coming had not as I shewed and therefore he must also have it still for he could not lose it by ordaining others or if he had it not before how could he give it unto them whom he ordained For plus juris in alium tranferre nemo potest quam ipse habet Howsoever it be then to be sure Titus had it in his own person and then it follows undeniably that either this coercive Jurisdiction was not necessary for the Church which would be either to suppose men impeccable or the Church to be exposed to all the inconveniences of Schism and tumultuary factions without possibility of relief or if it was necessary then because it was in Titus not as a personal prerogative but a power to be succeeded to he might ordain others he had authority to do it with the same power he had himself and therefore since he alone had this coercion in his own person so should his successors and then because a single Presbyter could not have it over his brethren by the confession of all sides nor the Colledge of Presbyters which were there before his coming had it not for why then was Titus sent with a new commission nor those which he was to ordain if they were but meer Presbyters could not have it no more than the Presbyters that were there before his coming it follows that those Elders which S. Paul sent Titus to ordain being such as were to be constituted in opposition and power over the false Doctors and prating Preachers and with authority to silence them as is evident in the first Chapter of that Epistle these Elders I say are verily and indeed such as himself calls Bishops in the proper sence and acceptation of the word 6. The Cretan Presbyters who were there before S. Titus's coming had not power to ordain others that is had not that power that Titus had For Titus was sent thither for that purpose therefore to supply the want of that power And now because to ordain others was necessary for the conservation and succession of the Church that is because new generations are necessary for the continuing the world and meer Presbyters could not do it and yet this must be done not only by Titus himself but after him it follows undeniably that S. Paul sent Titus to ordain men with the same power that himself had that is with more than his first Cretan Presbyters that is Bishops and he means them in the proper sence 7. That by Elders in several Cities he means Bishops is also plain from the place where they were to be ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In populous Cities not in village Towns For no Bishops were ever suffered to be in village Towns as is to be seen in the Councils of Sardis of Chalcedon and S. Leo the Cities therefore do at least highly intimate that the persons to be ordained were not meer Presbyters The issue of this discourse is That since Titus was sent to Crete to ordain Bishops himself was a Bishop to be
wanting or amiss to silence vain prating Preachers that will not submit to their superiors to ordain elders to rebuke delinquents to reject Hereticks viz. from the communion of the faithful for else why was the Angel of the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating the Nicolaitan hereticks but that it was in his power to eject them And the same is the case of the Angel of Thyatira in permitting the woman to teach and seduce the people but to the Bishop was committed the cognizance of causes criminal and particular of Presbyters so to Timothy in the instance formerly alledged nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority so in the case of Titus and officium regendae Ecclesiae the office of ruling the Church so to them all whom the Apostles left in the several Churches respectively which they had new founded So Eusebius For the Bishop was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set over all Clergy and Laity saith S. Clement This was given to Bishops by the Apostles themselves and this was not given to Presbyters as I have already proved and for the present it will sufficiently appear in this that Bishops had power over Presbyters which cannot be supposed they had over themselves unless they could be their own superiours SECT XXI Not lessened by the assistance and Counsel of Presbyters BUT a Council or Colledge of Presbyters might have jurisdiction over any one and such Colledges there were in the Apostles times and they did in communi Ecclesiam regere govern the Church in common with the Bishop as saith S. Hierom viz. where there was a Bishop and where there was none they ruled without him This indeed will call us to a new account and it relies upon the testimony of S. Hierom which I will set down here that we may leave the Sun without a cloud S. Jerome's words are these Idem est enim Presbyter quod Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum concilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur Postquam verò unusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut Schismatum semina tollerentur Then he brings some arguments to confirm his saying and summes them up thus Haec diximus ut ostenderemus apud vereres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos Episcopos ut Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quà m Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse majores in communi debere Ecclesiam regere c. The thing S. Hierome aims to prove is the identity of Bishop Presbyter and their government of the Church in common * For their identity It is clear that S. Hierome does not mean it in respect of order as if a Bishop and a Presbyter had both one office per omnia one power for else he contradicts himself most apertly for in his Epistle ad Evagrium Quâ—d facit saith he Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat A Presbyter may not ordain a Bishop does which is a clear difference of power and by S. Hierome is not expressed in matter of fact but of right quod Presbyter non faciat not non facit that a Priest may not must not do that a Bishop does viz. he gives holy orders * And for matter of fact S. Hierome knew that in his time a Presbyter did not govern in common but because he conceived it was fit he should be joyned in the common regiment and care of the Diocess therefore he asserted it as much as he could And therefore if S. Hierome had thought that this difference of the power of ordination had been only customary and by actual indulgence or incroachment or positive constitution and no matter of primitive and original right S. Hierome was not so diffident but out it should come what would have come And suppose S. Hierome in this distinct power of ordination had intended it only to be a difference in fact not in right for so some of late have muttered then S. Hierome had not said true according to his own Principles for Quid facit Episcopus exceptâ ordinatione quòd Presbyter non faciat had been quickly answered if the Question had only been de facto for the Bishop governed the Church alone and so in Jurisdiction was greater than Presbyters and this was by custom and in fact at least S. Hierome says it and the Bishop took so much power to himself that de facto Presbyters were not suffered to do any thing sine literis Episcopalibus without leave of the Bishop and this S. Hierome complained of so that de facto the power of ordination was not the only difference That then if Saint Hierome says true being the only difference between Presbyter and Bishop must be meant de jure in matter of right not humane positive for that is coincident with the other power of jurisdiction which de facto and at least by a humane right the Bishop had over Presbyters but Divine and then this identity of Bishop and Presbyter by S. Hierom's own confession cannot be meant in respect of order but that Episcopacy is by Divine right a Superiour order to the Presbyterate * Add to this that the arguments which S. Hierome uses in this discourse are to prove that Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters To this purpose he urges Acts 20. and Philippians 1. and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus and some others but all driving to the same issue To what Not to prove that Presbyters are sometimes called Presbyters For who doubts that But that Bishops are so may be of some consideration and needs a proof and this he undertook Now that they are so called must needs infer an identity and a disparity in several respects An identity at least of Names for else it had been wholly impertinent A disparity or else his arguments were to prove idem affirmari de eodem which were a business next to telling pins Now then this disparity must be either in order or jurisdiction By the former probation it is sure that he means the orders to be disparate If jurisdiction too I am content but the former is most certain if he stand to his own principles This identity then which S. Jerome expresses of Episcopus and Presbyter must be either in Name or in Jurisdiction I know not certainly which he means for his arguments conclude only for the identity of Names but his conclusion is for identity of Jurisdiction Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere is the intent of his discourse If he means the first viz. that of Names it is well enough there is no harm done it is in confesso apud omnes but concludes nothing as I shall shew hereafter but because he intends so far as may be guessed by his words a parity and
much exact in requiring the capacity of the person as the Number of the Ordainers But let them answer it For my part I believe that the imposition of hands by Andreas was no more in that case than if a lay-man had done it it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though the ordination was absolutely Uncanonical yet it being in the exigence of Necessity and being done by two Bishops according to the Apostolical Canon it was valid in naturâ rei though not in forma Canonis and the addition of the Priest was but to cheat the Canon and cozen himself into an impertinent belief of a Canonical ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis Bishops must ordain Bishops It was never heard that Priests did or de jure might These premises do most certainly infer a real difference between Episcopacy and the Presbyterate But whether or no they infer a difference of order or only of degree or whether degree and order be all one or no is of great consideration in the present and in relation to many other Questions 1. Then it is evident that in Antiquity Ordo and Gradus were used promiscuously 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Greek word and for it the Latins used Ordo as is evident in the instances above mentioned to which add that Anacletus says that Christ did instituere duos Ordines Episcoporum Sacerdotum And S. Leo affirâ—â— Primum ordinem esse Episcopalem secundum Presbyteralem tertium Leviticum And these among the Greeks are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three degrees So the order of Deaconship in S. Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. is a censure used alike in the censures of Bishops Priests and Deacons They are all of the same Name and the same consideration for order distance and degree amongst the Fathers Gradus and Ordo are equally affirmed of them all and the word Gradus is used sometimes for that which is called Ordo most frequently So Felix writing to S. Austin Non tantum ego possum contra tuam virtutem quia mira virtus est Gradus Episcopalis and S. Cyprian of Cornelius Ad Sacerdotii sublime fastigium cunctis religionis Gradibus ascendit Degree and Order are used in common for he that speaks most properly will call that an Order in persons which corresponds to a degree in qualities and neither of the words are wronged by a mutual substitution 2. The promotion of a Bishop ad Munus Episcopale was at first called ordinatio Episcopi Stir up the Grace that is in thee juxta ordinationem tuam in Episcopatum saith Sedulius And S. Hierom prophetiae gratiam habebat cum Ordinatione Episcopatus Neque enim fas erat aut licebat ut inferior Ordinaret majorem saith S. Ambrose proving that Presbyters might not impose hands on a Bishop * Romanorum Ecclesia Clementem à Petro Ordinatum edit saith Tertulliâ—n and S. Hierome affirms that S. James was Ordained Bishop of Jerusalem immediately after the Passion of our Lord. Ordinatus was the the word at first and afterwards Consecratus came in conjunction with it when Moses the Monk was to be ordained to wit a Bishop for that 's the title of the story in Theodoret and spyed that Lucius was there ready to impose hands on him absit says he ut manus tua me Consecret 3. In all orders there is the impress of a distinct Character that is the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices which before his ordination he had no power to do A Deacon hath an order or power Quo pocula vitae Misceat latices cum Sanguine porrigat agni as Arator himself a Deacon expresses it A Presbyter hath an higher order or degree in the office or ministery of the Church whereby he is enabled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council of Ancyra does intimate But a Bishop hath a higher yet for besides all the offices communicated to Priests and Deacons he can give orders which very one thing makes Episcopacy to be a distinct order For Ordo is designed by the Schools to be traditio potestatis spiritualis Collatio gratiae ad obeunda Ministeria Ecclesiastica a giving a spiritual power and a conferring grace for the performance of Ecclesiastical Ministrations Since then Episcopacy hath a new ordination and a distinct power as I shall shew in the descent it must needs be a distinct order both according to the Name given it by antiquity and according to the nature of the thing in the definitions of the School There is nothing said against this but a fancy of some of the Church of Rome obtruded indeed upon no grounds for they would define order to be a special power in relation to the Holy Sacrament which they call corpus Christi naturale and Episcopacy indeed to be a distinct power in relation ad corpus Christi Mysticum or the regiment of the Church and ordaining labourers for the harvest and therefore not to be a distinct order But this to them that consider things sadly is true or false according as any man list For if these men are resolved they will call nothing an order but what is a power in order to the consecration of the Eucharist who can help it Then indeed in that sence Episcopacy is not a distinct order that is a Bishop hath no new power in the consecration of the Venerable Eucharist more than a Presbyter hath But then why these men should only call this power an order no man can give a reason For 1. in Antiquity the distinct power of a Bishop was ever called an Order and I think before Hugo de S. Victore and the Master of the Sentences no man ever denied it to be an order 2. According to this rate I would fain know the office of a Sub-deacon and of an Ostiary and of an Acolouthite and of a Reader come to be distinct Orders for surely the Bishop hath as much power in order to consecration de Novo as they have de integro And if I mistake not that the Bishop hath a new power to ordain Presbyters who shall have a power of consecrating the Eucharist is more a new power in order to consecration than all those inferior officers put together have in all and yet they call them Orders and therefore why not Episcopacy also I cannot imagine unless because they will not *** But however in the mean time the denying the office and degree of Episcopacy to be a new and a distinct order is an innovation of the production of some in the Church of Rome without all reason and against all Antiquity This only by the way The enemies of Episcopacy call in aid from all places for support of their ruinous cause and therefore take their main hopes from the Church of Rome by advantage of the former discourse
For since say they that consecration of the Sacrament is the Greatest work of the most secret mystery greatest power and highest dignity that is competent to man and this a Presbyter hath as well as a Bishop is it likely that a Bishop should by Divine institution be so much superiour to a Presbyter who by the confession of all sides communicates with a Bishop in that which is his highest power And shall issues of a lesser dignity distinguish the Orders and make a Bishop higher to a Presbyter and not rather the Greater raise up a Presbyter to the Counterpoise of a Bishop Upon this surmise the men of the Church of Rome would infer an identity of order though a disparity of degree but the Men of the other world would infer a parity both of order and degree too The first are already answered in the premises The second must now be served 1. Then whether power be greater of Ordaining Priests or Consecrating the Sacrament is an impertinent Question possibly it may be of some danger because in comparing Gods ordinances there must certainly be a depression of one and whether that lights upon the right side or no yet peradventure it will not stand with the consequence of our gratitude to God to do that which in Gods estimate may tantamount to a direct undervaluing but however it is unprofitable of no use in case of conscience either in order to faith or manners and besides cannot fix it self upon any basis there being no way of proving either to be more excellent than the other 2. The Sacraments and mysteries of Christianity if compared among themselves are greater and lesser in several respects For since they are all in order to several ends that is productive of several effects and they all are excellent every rite and sacrament in respect of its own effect is more excellent than the other not ordained to that effect For example Matrimony is ordained for a means to preserve Chastity and to represent the mystical union of Christ and his Church and therefore in these respects is greater than baptism which does neither But * Baptism is for remission of sins and in that is more excellent than Matrimony the same may be said for ordination and consecration the one being in order to Christs natural body as the Schools speak the other in order to his mystical body and so have their several excellencies respectively but for an absolute preheminence of one above the other I said there was no basis to fix that upon and I believe all men will find it so that please to try But in a relative or respective excellency they go both before and after one another Thus Wool and a Jewel are better than each other for wool is better for warmth and a jewel for ornament A frogg hath more sense in it than the Sun and yet the Sun shines brighter 3. Suppose consecration of the Eucharist were greater than ordaining Priests yet that cannot hinder but that the power of ordaining may make a higher and distinct order because the power of ordaining hath in it the power of consecrating and something more it is all that which makes the Priest and it is something more besides which makes the Bishop Indeed if the Bishop had it not and the Priest had it then supposing consecration to be greater than ordination the Priest would not only equal but excel the Bishop but because the Bishop hath that and ordination besides therefore he is higher both in Order and Dignity 4. Suppose that Consecration were the greatest Clerical power in the world and that the Bishop and the Priest were equal in the greatest power yet a lesser power than it superadded to the Bishops may make a distinct order and superiority Thus it was said of the son of Man Constituit eum paulò minorem Angelis he was made a little lower than the Angels It was but a little lower and yet so much as to distinguish their Natures for he took not upon him the Nature of Angels but the seed of Abraham So it is in proportion between Bishop and Priest for though a Priest communicating in the greatest power of the Church viz. consecration of the venerable Eucharist yet differing in a less is paulò minor Angelis a little lower than the Bishop the Angel of the Church yet this little lower makes a distinct order and enough for a subordination * An Angel and a man communicate in those great excellencies of spiritual essence they both discourse they have both election and freedom of choice they have will and understanding and memory impresses of the Divine image and loco-motion and immortality And these excellencies are being precisely considered of more real and eternal worth than the Angelical manner of moving so in an instant and those other forms and modalities of their knowledge and volition and yet for these superadded parts of excellency the difference is no less than specifical If we compare a Bishop and a Priest thus what we call difference in nature there will be a difference in order here and of the same consideration 5. Lastly it is considerable that these men that make this objection do not make it because they think it true but because it will serve a present turn For all the world sees that to them that deny the real presence this can be no objection and most certainly the Anti-episcopal men do so in all sences and then what excellency is there in the power of consecration more than in ordination Nay is there any such thing as consecration at all This also would be considered from their principles But I proceed One thing only more is objected against the main Question If Episcopacy be a distinct order why may not a man be a Bishop that never was a Priest as abstracting from the Laws of the Church a man may be a Presbyter that never was a Deacon for if it be the impress of a distinct character it may be imprinted per saltum and independently as it is in the order of a Presbyter To this I answer It is true if the powers and characters themselves were independent as it is in all those offices of humane constitution which are called the inferior orders For the office of an Acolouthite of an Exorcist of an Ostiary are no way dependent on the office of a Deacon and therefore a man may be Deacon that never was in any of those and perhaps a Presbyter too that never was a Deacon as it was in the first example of the Presbyterate in the 72. Disciples But a Bishop though he have a distinct character yet it is not disparate from that of a Presbyter but supposes it ex vi ordinis For since the power of ordination if any thing be is the distinct capacity of a Bishop this power supposes a power of consecrating the Eucharist to be in the Bishop for how else can he ordain a Presbyter with a power that
himself hath not can he give what himself hath not received * I end this point with the saying of Epiphanius Vox est Aerii haeretici Vnus est ordo Episcoporum Presbyterorum una dignitas To say that Bishops are not a distinct order from Presbyters was a heresy first broached by Aerius and hath lately been at least in the manner of speaking countenanced by many of the Church of Rome SECT XXXII For Bishops had a power distinct and Superiour to that of Presbyters As of Ordination FOR to clear the distinction of order it is evident in Antiquity that Bishops had a power of imposing hands for collating of orders which Presbyters have not * What was done in this affair in the times of the Apostles I have already explicated but now the inquiry is what the Church did in pursuance of the practice and tradition Apostolical The first and second Canons of Apostles command that two or three Bishops should ordain a Bishop and one Bishop should ordain a Priest and a Deacon A Presbyter is not authorized to ordain a Bishop is S. Dionysius affirms Sacerdotem non posse initiari nisi per invocationes Episcopales and acknowledges no ordainer but a Bishop No more did the Church ever Insomuch that when Novatus the Father of the old Puritans did ambire Episcopatum he was fain to go to the utmost parts of Italy and seduce or intreat some Bishops to impose hands on him as Cornelius witnesses in his Epistle to Fabianus in Eusebius To this we may add as so many witnesses all those ordinations made by the Bishops of Rome mentioned in the Pontifical book of Damasus Platina and others Habitis de more sacris ordinibus Decembris mense Presbyteros decem Diaconos duos c. creat S. Clemens Anacletus Presbyteros quinque Diaconos tres Episcopos diversis in locis sex numero creavit and so in descent for all the Bishops of that succession for many ages together But let us see how this power of ordination went in the Bishops hand alone by Law and Constitution for particular examples are infinite In the Council of Ancyra it is determined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Rural Bishops shall not ordain Presbyters or Deacons in anothers Diocess without letters of license from the Bishop Neither shall the Priests of the City attempt it * First not Rural Bishops that is Bishops that are taken in adjutorium Episcopi Principalis Vicars to the Bishop of the Diocess they must not ordain Priests and Deacons For it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is anothers Diocess and to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is prohibited by the Canon of Scripture But then they may with license Yes for they had Episcopal Ordination at first but not Episcopal Jurisdiction and so were not to invade the territories of their neighbour The tenth Canon of the Council of Antioch clears this part The words are these as they are rendred by Dionysius Exiguus Qui in villis vicis constituti sunt Chorepiscopi tametsi manus impositionem ab Episcopis susceperunt ut Episcopi sunt consecrati tamen oportet eos modum proprium retinere c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the next clause ut Episcopi consecrati sunt although it be in very ancient Latine copies yet is not found in the Greek but is an assumentum for exposition of the Greek but is most certainly implyed in it for else what description could this be of Chorepiscopi above Presbyteri rurales to say that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so had countrey Priests they had received imposition of the Bishops hands Either then the Chorepiscopi had received ordination from three Bishops and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be taken collectively not distributively to wit that each Countrey Bishop had received ordination from Bishops many Bishops in conjunction and so they were very Bishops or else they had no more than village Priests and then this caution had been impertinent * But the City Priests were also included in this prohibition True it is but it is in a Parenthesis with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the midst of the Canon and there was some particular reason for the involving them not that they ever did actually ordain any but that since it was prohibited to the Chorepiscopi to ordain to them I say who though for want of jurisdiction they might not ordain without license it being in alienâ Parochiâ yet they had capacity by their order to do it if these should do it the City Presbyters who were often dispatched into the Villages upon the same imployment by a temporary mission that the Chorepiscopi were by an ordinary and fixt residence might perhaps think that their commission might extend farther than it did or that they might go beyond it as well as the Chorepiscopi and therefore their way was obstructed by this clause of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * Add to this The Presbyters of the City were of great honour and peculiar priviledge as appears in the thirteenth Canon of the Council of Neo-Caesarea and therefore might easily exceed if the Canon had not been their bridle The sum of the Canon is this With the Bishops license the Chorepiscopi might ordain for themselves had Episcopal ordination but without license they might not for they had but delegate and subordinate jurisdiction And therefore in the fourteenth Canon of Neo-Caesarea are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like the 70 Disciples that is inferior to Bishops and the 70 were to the twelve Apostles viz. in hoc particulari not in order but like them in subordination and inferiority of jurisdiction but the City Presbyters might not ordain neither with nor without license for they are in the Canon only by way of parenthesis and the sequence of procuring a faculty from the Bishops to collate orders is to be referred to Chorepiscopi not to Presbyteri Civitatis unless we should strain this Canon into a sence contrary to the practice of the Catholick Church Res enim ordinis non possunt delegari is a most certain rule in Divinity and admitted by men of all sides and most different interests * However we see here that they were prohibited and we never find before this time that any of them actually did give orders neither by ordinary power nor extraordinary dispensation and the constant tradition of the Church and practice Apostolical is that they never could give orders therefore this exposition of the Canon is liable to no exception but is clear for the illegality of a Presbyter giving holy orders either to a Presbyter or a Deacon and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of Episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations for reddendo singula singulis and expounding this Canon according to the sence of the Church and exigence of Catholick custome the Chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders for want of jurisdiction and the Priests of
the City for want of order the first may be supplied by a delegate power in literis Episcopalibus the second cannot but by a new ordination that is by making the Priest a Bishop For if a Priest of the City have not so much power as a Chorepiscopus as I have proved he hath not by shewing that the Chorepiscopus then had Episcopal ordination and yet the Chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop the City Priests might not do it unless more be added to them for their want was more They not only want jurisdiction but something besides and that must needs be order * But although these Chorepiscopi at the first had Episcopal Ordination yet it was quickly taken from them for their incroachment upon the Bishops Diocess and as they were but Vicarii or visitatores Episcoporum in villis so their ordination was but to a meer Presbyterate And this we find as soon as ever we hear that they had had Episcopal Ordination For those who in the beginning of the 10 Canon of Antioch we find had been consecrated as Bishops in the end of the same Canon we find it decreed de novo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Chorepiscopus or countrey Bishop must be ordained by the Bishop of the City in whose jurisdiction he is which was clearly ordination to the order of a Presbyter and no more And ever after this all the ordinations they made were only to the inferiour Ministeries with the Bishops License too but they never ordained any to be Deacons or Priests for these were Orders of the Holy Ghosts appointing and therefore were gratia Spiritus Sancti and issues of order but the inferiour Ministeries as of a Reader an Ostiary c. were humane constitutions and required not the capacity of Episcopal Order to collate them for they were not Graces of the Holy Ghost as all Orders properly so called are but might by humane dispensation be bestowed as well as by humane ordinance they had their first constitution * * The Chorepiscopi lasted in this consistence till they were quite taken away by the Council of Hispalis save only that such men also were called Chorepiscopi who had been Bishops of Cities but had fallen from their honour by communicating in Gentile Sacrifices and by being Traditors but in case they repented and were reconciled they had not indeed restitution to their See but because they had the indeleble character of a Bishop they were allowed the Name and honour and sometime the execution of offices Chorepiscopal Now of this sort of Chorepiscopi no objection can be pretended if they had made ordinations and of the other nothing pertinent for they also had the ordination and order of Bishops The former was the case of Meletius in the Nicene Council as is to be seen in the Epistle of the Fathers to the Church of Alexandria But however all this while the power of ordination is so fast held in the Bishops hand that it was communicated to none though of the greatest priviledge * I find the like care taken in the Council of Sardis for when Musaeus and Eutychianus had ordained some Clerks themselves not being Bishops Gaudentius one of the moderate men it is likely for quietness sake and to comply with the times would fain have had those Clerks received into Clerical communion but the Council would by no means admit that any should be received into the Clergy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon expresses upon that Canon but such as were ordained by them who were Bishops verily and indeed But with those who were ordained by Musaeus and Eutychianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we will communicate as with Laymen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For they were no Bishops that imposed hands on them and therefore the Clerks were not ordained truly but were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissemblers of ordination Quae autem de Musaeo Eutychiano dicta sunt trahe etiam ad alios qui non ordinati fuerunt c. saith Balsamon intimating that it is a ruled case and of publick interest * The same was the issue of those two famous cases the one of Ischiras ordained of Colluthus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that dreamed only he was a Bishop Ischiras being ordained by him could be no Priest nor any else of his ordaining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ischyras himself was reduced into lay communion being deposed by the Synod of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falling from the imagination of his Presbyterate say the Priests and Deacons of Mareotis And of the rest that were ordained with Ischiras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Athanasius and this so known a business 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No man made scruple of the Nullity ** The parallel case is of the Presbyters ordained by Maximus who was another Bishop in the air too all his ordinations were pronounced null by the Fathers of the Council in Constantinople A third is of the blind Bishop of Agabra imposing hands while his Presbyters read the words of ordination the ordination was pronounced invalid by the first Council of Sevil. These cases are so known I need not insist on them This only In diverse cases of Transgression of the Canons Clergy men were reduced to lay communion either being suspended or deposed that is from their place of honour and execution of their function with or without hope of restitution respectively but then still they had their order and the Sacramens conferred by them were valid though they indeed were prohibited to minister but in the cases of the present instance the ordinations were pronounced as null to have bestowed nothing and to be merely imaginary * But so also it was in case that Bishops ordained without a title or in the Diocess of another Bishop as in the Council of Chalcedon of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And may be it was so in case of ordination by a Presbyter it was by positive constitution pronounced void and no more and therefore may be rescinded by the Countermand of an equal power A Council at most may do it and therefore without a Council a probable necessity will let us loose But to this the answer is evident 1. The expressions in the several cases are several and of diverse issue for in case of those nullities which are meerly Canonical they are expressed as then first made but in the case of ordination by a Non-Bishop they are only declared void ipso facto And therefore in that decree of Chalcedon against Sinetitular ordinations the Canon saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irritam Existimari manus impositionem to be esteemed as null that is not to have Canonical approbation but is not declared null in natura rei as it is in the foregoing instances 2. In the cases of Antioch and Chalcedon the degree is pro futuro which makes it evident that those nullities are such as are made
by Canon but in the cases of Colluthus and Maximus there was declaration of a past nullity and that before any Canon was made and though Synodal declarations pronounced such ordinations invalid yet none decreed so for the future which is a clear evidence that this nullity viz. in case of ordination by a Non-Presbyter is not made by Canon but by Canon declared to be invalid in the nature of the thing 3. If to this be added that in antiquity it was dogmatically resolved that by nature and institution of the order of Bishops ordination was appropriate to them then it will also from hence be evident that the nullity of ordination without a Bishop is not dependent upon positive constitution but on the exigence of the institution ** Now that the power of ordination was only in the Bishop even they who to advance the Presbyters were willing enough to speak less for Episcopacy give testimony making this the proper distinctive cognizance of a Bishop from a Presbyter that the Bishop hath power of ordination the Presbyter hath not So S. Jerome Quid facit Episcopus excepta ordinatione quod Presbyter non faciat All things saith he to wit all things of precise order are common to Bishops with Priests except ordination for that is proper to the Bishop And S. Chrysostome Sola quippe ordinatione superiores illis sunt Episcopi atque hoc tantum plusquam Presbyteri habere videntur Ordination is the proper and peculiar function of a Bishop and therefore not given him by positive constitution of the Canon 4. No man was called an heretick for breach of Canon but for denying the power of ordination to be proper to a Bishop Aerius was by Epiphanius Philastrius and S. Austin condemned and branded for heresie and by the Catholick Church saith Epiphanius This power therefore came from a higher spring than positive and Canonical Sanction But now proceed The Council held in Trullo complaining of the incursion of the barbarous people upon the Churches inheritance saith that it forced some Bishops from their residence and made that they could not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the guise of the Church give Orders and do such things as did belong to the Bishop and in the sequel of the Canon they are permitted in such cases ut diversorum Clericorum ordinationes canonicè faciant to make Canonical ordinations of Clergy men Giving of Orders is proper it belongs to a Bishop So the Council And therefore Theodoret expounding that place of S. Paul by laying on the hands of the Presbytery interprets it of Bishops for this reason because Presbyters did not impose hands There is an imperfect Canon in the Arausican Council that hath an expression very pertinent to this purpose Ea quae non nisi per Episcopos geruntur those things that are not done but by Bishops they were decreed still to be done by Bishops though he that was to do them regularly did fall into any infirmity whatsoever yet non sub praesentia sua Presbyteros agere permittat sed evocet Episcopum Here are clearly by this Canon some things supposed to be proper to the Bishops to the action of which Presbyters must in no case be admitted The particulars what they are are not specified in the Canon but are named before viz. Orders and Confirmation for almost the whole Council was concerning them and nothing else is properly the agendum Episcopi and the Canon else is not to be understood * To the same issue is that circum-locutory description or name of a Bishop used by S. Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The man that is to ordain Clerks * And all this is but the doctrine of the Catholick Church which S. Epiphanius opposed to the doctrine of Aerius denying Episcopacy to be a distinct order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking of Presbytery The order of Bishops begets Fathers to the Church of God but the order of Presbyters begets sonnes in baptism but no fathers or Doctors by ordination * It is a very remarkable passage related by Eusebius in the ordination of Novatus to be Presbyter the Bishop did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the whole Clergy was against it yet the Bishop did ordain him and then certainly scarce any conjunction of the other Clergy can be imagined I am sure none is either expressed or intimated For it was a ruled case and attested by the Uniform practise of the Church which was set down in the third Council of Carthage Episcopus Vnus esse potest per quem dignatione Divina Presbyteri multi constitui possunt This case I instance the more particularly because it is an exact determination of a Bishops sole power of ordination Aurelius made a motion that if a Church wanted a Presbyter to become her Bishop they might demand one from any Bishop It was granted But Posthumianus the Bishop put this case Deinde qui Vnum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri How if the Bishop have but one Priest must his Bishop part with him to supply the necessity of the Neighbour widow Church Yea that he must But how then shall he keep ordinations when he hath never a Presbyter to assist him That indeed would have been the objection now but it was none then For Aurelius told them plainly there was no inconvenience in it for though a Bishop have never a Presbyter no great matter he can himself ordain many and then I am sure there is a sole ordination but if a Bishop be wanting to a Church he is not so easily found ** Thus it went ordinarily in the stile of the Church ordinations were made by the Bishop and the ordainer spoken of as a single person So it is in the Nicene Council the Council of Antioch the Council of Chalcedon and S. Jerome who writing to Pammachius against the errors of John of Jerusalem If thou speak saith he of Paulinianus he comes now and then to visit us not as any of your Clergy but ejus à quo ordinatus est that Bishop's who ordained him * So that the issue of this argument is this The Canons of the Apostles and the rules of the Ancient Councils appropriate the ordination of Bishops to Bishops of Presbyters to one Bishop for I never find a Presbyter ordained by two Bishops together but only Origen by the Bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea Presbyters are never mentioned in conjunction with Bishops at their ordinations and if alone they did it their ordination was pronounced invalid and void ab initio * To these particulars add this that Bishops alone were punished if ordinations were Vncanonical which were most unreasonable if Presbyters did joyn in them and were causes in conjunction But unless they did it alone we never read that they were punishable indeed Bishops were pro toto integro as is reported by
were Presbyters before this choice And lastly It was only a nomination of seven Men the determination of the business and the authority of rejection was still in the Apostles and indeed the whole power Whom we may appoint over this business and after all this there can be no hurt done by the objection especially since clearly and indubiously the election of Bishops and Presbyters was in the Apostles own persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Ignatius of Evodias Evodias was first appointed to be your Governour or Bishop by the Apostles and themselves did commit it to others that were Bishops as in the instances before reckoned Thus the case stood in Scripture 2. In the practice of the Church it went according to the same law and practice Apostolical The People did not might not chuse the Ministers of holy Church So the Council of Laodicea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The people must not chuse those that are to be promoted to the Priesthood The prohibition extends to their Non-election of all the Superiour Clergy Bishops and Presbyters But who then must elect them The Council of Nice determines that for in 16 and 17 Canons the Council forbids any promotion of Clerks to be made but by the Bishop of that Church where they are first ordained which clearly reserves to the Bishop the power of retaining or promoting all his Clergy * 3. All Ordinations were made by Bishops alone as I have already proved Now let this be confronted with the practice of Primitive Christendom that no Presbyter might be ordained sine titulo without a particular charge which was always custom and at last grew to be a law in the Council of Chalcedon and we shall perceive that the ordainer was the only chuser for then to ordain a Presbyter was also to give him a charge and the Patronage of a Church was not a lay inheritance but part of the Bishops cure for he had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The care of the Churches in all the Diocess as I have already shown And therefore when S. Jerome according to the custom of Christendom had specified some particular ordinations or election of Presbyters by Bishops as how himself was made Priest by Paulinus and Paulinus by Epiphanius of Cyprus Gaudeat Episcopus judicio suo cum tales Christo elegerit Sacerdotes Let the Bishop rejoyce in his own act having chosen such worthy Priests for the service of Christ. Thus S. Ambrose gives intimation that the dispensing all the offices in the Clergy was solely in the Bishop Haec spectet Sacerdos quod cuique congruat id officii deputet Let the Bishop observe these rules and appoint every one his office as is best answerable to his condition and capacity And Theodoret report of Leontius the Bishop of Antioch how being an Arian Adversarios recti dogmatis suscipiens licet turpem habentes vitam ad Presbyteratus tamen ordinem Diaconatus evexit Eos autem qui Vniversis virtutibus ornabantur Apostolica dogmata defendebant absque honore deseruit He advanced his own faction but would not promote any man that was catholick and pious So he did The power therefore of Clerical promotion was in his own hands This thing is evident and notorious and there is scarce any example in Antiquity of either Presbyters or people chusing any Priest but only in the case of S. Austin whom the Peoples haste snatch'd and carried him to their Bishop Valerius intreating him to ordain him Priest This indeed is true that the testimony of the people for the life of them that were to be ordained was by S. Cyprian ordinarily required In ordinandis Clericis Fratres Charissimi solemus vos ante consulere mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare It was his custom to advise with his people concerning the publick fame of Clerks to be ordained It was usual I say with him but not perpetual for it was otherwise in the case of Celerinus and divers others as I shewed elsewhere 4. In election of Bishops though not of Priests the Clergy and the people had a greater actual interest and did often intervene with their silent consenting suffrages or publick acclamations But first This was not necessary It was otherwise among the Apostles and in the case of Timothy of Titus of S. James of S. Mark and all the Successors whom they did constitute in the several charges 2. This was not by law or right but in fact only It was against the Canon of the Laodicean Council and the 31 Canon of the Apostles which under pain of deposition commands that a Bishop be not promoted to his Church by the intervening of any lay power Against this discourse S. Cyprian is strongly pretended Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi Quod ipsum videmus de divina authoritate descendere c. Thus he is usually cited the people have power to chuse or to refuse their Bishops and this comes to them from Divine authority No such matter The following words expound him better Quod ipsum videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere ut Sacerdos plebe Praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur That the Bishop is chosen publickly in the presence of the people and he only be thought fit who is approved by publick judgment and testimony or as S. Pauls phrase is he must have a good report of all men that is indeed a divine institution and that to this purpose and for the publick attestation of the act of election and ordination the peoples presence was required appears clearly by S. Cyprians discourse in this Epistle For what is the Divine authority that he mentions It is only the example of Moses whom God commanded to take the Son of Eleazar and cloath him with his Fathers robes coram omni Synagoga before all the congregation The people chose not God chose Eleazar and Moses consecrated him and the people stood and looked on that 's all that this argument can supply * Just thus Bishops are and ever were ordained Non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientiâ In the sight of the people standing by but to what end Vt plebe praesente detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedicentur All this while the election is not in the people nothing but the publick testimony and examination for so it follows Et sit ordinatio justa legitima quae omnium suffragio judicio fuerit examinata ** But S. Cyprian hath two more proofs whence we may learn either the sence or the truth of his assertion The one is of the Apostles ordaining the seven Deacons but this we have already examined the other of S. Peter chusing S. Matthias into the Apostolate it was indeed done in the presence of the people * But
meddle with causes Ecclesiastical nor oppose themselves to the Catholick Church or Councils Oecumenical They must not meddle for these things appertain to the cognizance of Bishops and their decision And now after all this what authority is equal to this Legislative of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Aristotle They are all evidences of power and authority to deliberate to determine or judge to make laws But to make laws is the greatest power that is imaginable The first may belong fairly enough to Presbyters but I have proved the two latter to be appropriate to Bishops SECT XLII And the Bishop had a propriety in the persons of his Clerks LASTLY as if all the acts of Jurisdiction and every imaginable part of power were in the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy the Presbyters are said to be Episcoporum Presbyteri the Bishops Presbyters as having a propriety in them and therefore a superiority over them and as the Bishop was a dispencer of those things which were in bonis Ecclesiae so he was of the persons too a Ruler in propriety * S. Hilary in the book which himself delivered to Constantine Ecclesiae adhuc saith he per Presbyteros meos communionem distribuens I still give the holy Communion to the faithful people by my Presbyters And therefore in the third Council of Carthage a great deliberation was had about requiring a Clerk of his Bishop to be promoted in another Church Denique qui unum habuerit numquid debet illi ipse unus Presbyter auferri saith Posthumianus If the Bishop have but one Presbyter must one be taken from him Id sequor saith Aurelius ut conveniam Episcopum ejus atque ei inculcem quod ejus Clericus à quâlibet Ecclesiâ postuletur And it was resolved Vt Clericum alienum nisi concedente ejus Episcopo No man shall retain anothers Bishop without the consent of the Bishop whose Clerk he is * When Athanasius was abused by the calumny of the hereticks his adversaries and entred to purge himself Athanasius ingreditur cum Timotheo Presbytero suo He comes in with Timothy his Presbyter and Arsenius cujus brachium dicebatur excisum lector aliquando fuerat Athanasii Arsenius was Athanasius His Reader Vbi autem ventum est ad Rumores de poculo fracto à Macario Presbytero Athanasii c. Macarius was another of Athanasius his Priests So Theodoret Peter and Irenaeus were two more of his Presbyters as himself witnesses Paulinianus sometimes to visit us saith S. Hierome to Pammachius but not as your Clerk Sed ejus à quo ordinatur His Clerk who did ordain But these things are too known to need a multiplication of instances The summ is this The question was whether or no and how far the Bishops had Superiority over Presbyters in the Primitive Church Their doctrine and practice have furnished us with these particulars The power of Church goods and the sole dispensation of them and a propriety of persons was reserved to the Bishop For the Clergy and Church possessions were in his power in his administration the Clergy might not travel without the Bishops leave they might not be preferred in another Diocess without license of their own Bishop in their own Churches the Bishop had sole power to prefer them and they must undertake the burden of any promotion if he calls them to it without him they might not baptize not consecrate the Eucharist not communicate not reconcile penitents not preach not only not without his ordination but not without a special faculty besides the capacity of their order The Presbyters were bound to obey their Bishops in their sanctions and canonical impositions even by the decree of the Apostles themselves and the doctrine of Ignatius and the constitution of S. Clement of the Fathers in the Council of Arles Ancyra and Toledo and many others The Bishops were declared to be Judges in ordinary of the Clergy and people of their Diocess by the concurcurrent suffrages of almost 2000 holy Fathers assembled in Nice Ephesus Chalcedon in Carthage Antioch Sardis Aquileia Taurinum Agatho and by the Emperor and by the Apostles and all this attested by the constant practice of the Bishops of the Primitive Church inflicting censures upon delinquents and absolving them as they saw cause and by the dogmatical resolution of the old Catholicks declaring in their attributes and appellatives of the Episcopal function that they have supreme and universal spiritual power viz. in the sence above explicated over all the Clergy and Laity of the Diocess as That they are higher than all power the image of God the figure of Christ Christs Vicar President of the Church Prince of Priests of authority imcomparable unparallell'd power and many more if all this be witness enough of the superiority of Episcopal jurisdiction we have their depositions we may proceed as we see cause for and reduce our Episcopacy to the Primitive state for that is truly a reformation Id Dominicum quod primum id haereticum quod posterius and then we shall be sure Episcopacy will lose nothing by these unfortunate contestations SECT XLIII Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes BUT against the cause it is objected super totam Materiam that Bishops were not Diocesan but Parochial and therefore of so confin'd a jurisdiction that perhaps our Village or City Priests shall advance their Pulpit as high as the Bishops throne * Well! Put case they were not Diocesan but parish Bishops what then yet they were such Bishops as had Presbyters and Deacons in subordination to them in all the particular advantages of the former instances 2. If the Bishops had the Parishes what cure had the Priests so that this will debase the Priests as much as the Bishops and if it will confine a Bishop to a Parish it will make that no Presbyter can be so much as a Parish-Priest If it brings a Bishop lower than a Diocess it will bring the Priest lower than a Parish For set a Bishop where you will either in a Diocess or a Parish a Presbyter shall still keep the same duty and subordination the same distance still So that this objection upon supposition of the former discourse will no way mend the matter for any side but make it far worse it will not advance the Presbytery but it will depress the whole Hierarchy and all the orders of Holy Church * But because this trifle is so much used amongst the enemies of Episcopacy I will consider it in little and besides that it does no body any good advantage I will represent it in its fucus and shew the falshood of it 1. Then It is evident that there were Bishops before there were any distinct Parishes For the first division of Parishes in the West was by Evaristus who lived almost 100 years after Christ and divided Rome into seven Parishes assigning to every one a Presbyter So Damasus reports of him in the
give very great assistances to Episcopal Government and yet be no warranty for Tyrannical and although even the Sayings of the Fathers is greater warranty for Episcopacy and weighs more than all that can be said against it Yet from thence nothing can be drawn to warrant to any man an Empire over Consciences and therefore as the probability of it can be used to one effect so the fallibility of it is also of use to another but yet even of this no man is to make any use in general but when he hath a necessity and a greater reason in the particular and I therefore have joyn'd these two Books in one Volume because they differ not at all in the design nor in the real purposes to which by their variety they minister I will not pretend to any special reason of the inserting any of the other Books into this Volume it is the design of my Bookseller to bring all that he can into a like Volume excepting only some Books of devotion which in a lesser Volume are more fit for use As for the Doctrine and Practice of Repentance which because I suppose it may so much contribute to the interest of a good life and is of so great and so necessary consideration to every person that desires to be instructed in the way of godliness and would assure his salvation by all means I was willing to publish it first in the lesser Volume that men might not by the encreasing price of a larger be hindred from doing themselves the greatest good to which I can minister which I humbly suppose to be done I am sure I intended to have done in that Book And now my Lord I humbly desire that although the presenting this Volume to your Lordship can neither promote that honour which is and ought to be the greatest and is by the advantages of your worthiness already made publick nor obtain to it self any security or defence from any injury to which without remedy it must be exposed yet if you please to expound it as a testimony of that great value I have for you though this signification is too little for it yet I shall be at ease a while till I can converse with your Lordship by something more proportionable to those greatest regards which you have merited of mankind but more especially of My Lord Your Lordships most affectionate Servant JER TAYLOR THE CONTENTS and ORDER of the whole Volume The Apologie for Liturgie THE Authors PREFACE to the Apology for Authorized and Set Forms of Liturgy Quest. 1. Whether all Set Forms are unlawful Page 2 2. Whether are better in publick Set Forms injoyned by Authority or Set Forms composed by private Preachers Sect. 51. pag. 13 Episcopacy Asserted Sect. 1. CHrist did institute a government in his Church pag. 45 2. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. 46 3. With a power of joyning others and appointing Successors 47 4. This Succession is made by Bishops 48 § For the Apostle and Bishop are all one in Name and Person ibid. 5. and Office 49 6. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters 50 7. Giving to Apostles a power to do some offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not 51 § as of Ordination ibid. 8. and Confirmation 52 9. and Superiority of Jurisdiction 55 10. So that Bishops are Successors in the office of Apostleship according to Antiquity 11. and particularly of S. Peter 61 12. And the institution of Episcopacy expressed to be jure divino by Primitive Authority 63 13. In pursuance of the Divine Institution the Apostles did ordain Bishops in several Churches as S. James and S. Simeon at Jerusalem 65 14. S. Timothy at Ephesus 67 15. S. Titus at Crete 70 16. S. Mark at Alexandria 73 17. S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome 74 18. S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others 75 19. So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical ordinance of the same authority with many other points generally believed 76 20. And was an office of Power and great Authority 77 21. Not lessened by the counsel and assistance of Presbyters ibid. 22. And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom 84 23. Who first distinguished names used before in common 85 24. Appropriating the word Episcopus to the supreme Church-officer 89 25. Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church 91 26. and Doctor 92 27. and Pontifex ibid. 28. And these were a distinct order from the rest 94 29. To which the Presbyterate was but a degree 96 30. There being a peculiar manner of Ordination to a Bishoprick 31. To which Presbyters never did assist by imposing hands 97 32. For a Bishop had a power distinct and superior to that of Presbyters As of Ordination 101 33. and Confirmation 108 34. and Jurisdiction Which they expressed in attributes of authority and great power 111 35. Requiring universal obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity 113 36. Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Laity in spiritual causes 115 37. Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license 125 38. Reserving Church Goods to Episcopal dispensation 129 39. Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Dioecese or to travel without leave of the Bishop 129 40. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased 130 41. Bishops only did vote in Council and neither Presbyters nor People 133 42. The Bishops had a propriety in the persons of their Clerks 138 43. Their Jurisdiction was over many Congregations or Parishes 139 44. And was aided by Presbyters but not impaired 144 45. So that the Government of the Church by Bishops was believed necessary 148 46. For they are Schismaticks that separate from their Bishop 149 47. And Hereticks 150 48. And Bishops were always in the Church men of great honour 152 49. And trusted with affairs of Secular interest 157 50. And therefore were forced to delegate their power and put others in substitution 163 51. But they were ever Clergie-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church 164 A Discourse of the Real Presence Sect. 1. THE state of the Question 181 2. Transubstantiation not warrantable by Scripture 186 3. Of the Sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel 188 4. Of the words of Institution 198 5. Of the Particle Hoc in the words of Institution 201 6. Of these words Hoc est corpus meum 208 7. Considerations of the manner circumstances and annexes of the Institution 213 8. Of the Arguments of the Romanists from Scripture 217 9. Arguments from other Texts of Scripture proving Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 219 10. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is against Sense 223 11. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is wholly without and against reason 230 12. Transubstantiation was not the doctrine of the Primitive Church 249 13. Of Adoration of the Sacrament 267 The
Ministers for they were Doctors or Teachers and that 's not all for they were Prophets too This even at first sight is more than the ordinary office of the Presbytery We shall see this clear enough in Saint Paul where the ordinary office of Prophets is reckoned before Pastors before Evangelists next to Apostles that is next to such Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Saint Paul there expresses it next to those Apostles to whom Christ hath given immediate mission And these are therefore Apostles too Apostles secundi ordinis none of the twelve but such as Saint James and Epaphroditus and Barnabas and Saint Paul himself To be sure they were such Prophets as Saint Paul and Barnabas for they are reckoned in the number by Saint Luke for here it was that Saint Paul although he had immediate vocation by Christ yet he had particular ordination to his Apostolate or Ministery of the Gentiles It is evident then what Prophets these were they were at the least more than ordinary Presbyters and therefore they imposed hands and they only And yet to make the business up compleat Saint Mark was amongst them but he imposed no hands he was there as the Deacon and Minister vers 5. but he medled not Saint Luke fixes the whole action upon the Prophets such as Saint Paul himself was and so did the Holy Ghost too but neither did Saint Mark who was an Evangelist and one of the 72. Disciples as he is reckoned in the Primitive Catalogues by Eusebius and Dorotheus nor any of the Colledge of the Antiochian Presbyters that were less than Prophets that is who were not more than meer Presbyters The sum is this Imposition of hands is a duty and office necessary for the perpetuating of a Church ne gens sit Vnius aetatis lest it expire in one age this power of imposition of hands for Ordination was fixt upon the Apostles and Apostolick men and not communicated to the 72. Disciples or Presbyters for the Apostles and Apostolick men did so de facto and were commanded to do so and the 72. never did so therefore this Office and Ministery of the Apostolate is distinct and superiour to that of Presbyters and this distinction must be so continued to all ages of the Church for the thing was not temporary but productive of issue and succession and therefore as perpetual as the Clergy as the Church it self SECT VIII And Confirmation SECONDLY The Apostles did impose hands for confirmation of Baptized people and this was a perpetual act of a power to be succeeded to and yet not communicated nor executed by the 72. or any other mere Presbyter That the Apostles did confirm Baptized people and others of the inferiour Clergy could not is beyond all exception clear in the case of the Samaritan Christians Acts 8. For when Saint Philip had converted and Baptized the Men of Samaria the Apostles sent Peter and John to lay their hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost Saint Philip he was an Evangelist he was one of the 72. Disciples a Presbyter and appointed to the same ministration that Saint Stephen was about the poor Widdows yet he could not do this the Apostles must and did This giving of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the Apostles hands was not for a miraculous gift but an ordinary Grace For Saint Philip could and did do miracles enough but this Grace he could not give the Grace of consigning or confirmation The like case is in Acts 12. where some people having been Baptized at Ephesus Saint Paul confirmed them giving them the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands The Apostles did it not the twelve only but Apostolick men the other Apostles Saint Paul did it Saint Philip could not nor any of the 72. or any other mere Presbyters ever did it that we find in Holy Scripture Yea but this imposition of hands was for a Miraculous issue for the Ephesine Christians received the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues and prophesied which effect because it is ceased certainly the thing was temporary and long ago expired First Not for this reason to be sure For extraordinary effects may be temporary when the function which they attest may be eternal and therefore are no signs of an extraordinary Ministery The Apostles preaching was attended by Miracles and extraordinary conversions of people ut in exordio Apostolos divinorum signorum comitabantur effectus Spiritûs Sancti gratia ità ut videres unâ alloquutione integros simul populos ad cultum divinae religionis adduci praedicantium verbis non esse tardiorem audientium fidem as Eusebius tells of the success of the preaching of some Evangelists yet I hope preaching must not now cease because no Miracles are done or that to convert one man now would be the greatest Miracle The Apostles when they cursed and anathematized a delinquent he dyed suddenly as in the case of Ananias and Saphira whom Saint Peter slew with the word of his Ministery and yet now although these extraordinary issues cease it is not safe venturing upon the curses of the Church When the Apostles did excommunicate a sinner he was presently delivered over to Satan to be buffeted that is to be afflicted with corporal punishments and now although no such exterminating Angels beat the bodies of persons excommunicate yet the power of excommunication I hope still remains in the Church and the power of the Keys is not also gone So also in the power of confirmation which however attended by a visible miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost in gifts of languages and healing yet like other miracles in respect of the whole integrity of Christian faith these miracles at first did confirm the function and the faith for ever Now then that this right of imposing hands for confirming of baptized people was not to expire with the persons of the Apostles appears from these considerations First Because Christ made a promise of sending Vicarium suum Spiritum the Holy Ghost in his stead and this by way of appropriation is called the promise of the Father This was pertinent to all Christendom Effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem so it was in the Prophecy For the promise is to you and to your Children 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to all them that are afar off even to as many as the Lord shall call So it was in the first accomplishing To all And this for ever for I will send the Holy Ghost unto you and he shall abide with you for ever for it was in subsidium to supply the comforts of his desired presence and must therefore ex vi intentionis be remanent till Christ's coming again Now then this promise being to be communicated to all and that for ever must either come to us by 1. Extraordinary and miraculous mission or by 2. an ordinary Ministery Not the first for we might as well expect the gift of Miracles
faith of the Primitive Church And yet the ordination of S. Mark was within the term of S. Lukes story for his successor Anianus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero's reign five or six years before the death of S. Paul Igitur Neronis primo Imperii anno post Marcum Evangelistam Ecclesiae apud Alexandriam Anianus Sacerdotium suscepit So the Latin of Ruffinus reads it in stead of octavo Sacerdotium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Bishoprick for else there were many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Priests in Alexandria besides him and how then he should be S. Marks successor more than the other Presbyters is not so soon to be contrived But so the Collecta of the Chapter runs Quod post Marcum primus Episcopus Alexandrinae Ecclesiae ordinatus sit Anianus Anianus was consecrated the first Bishop of Alexandria after S. Mark * And Philo the Jew telling the story of the Christians in Alexandria called by the inhabitants Cultores and Cultrices The worshippers Addit autem adhuc his saith Eusebius quomodò sacerdotes vel Ministri exhibeant officia sua vel quae sit supra omnia Episcopalis apicis sedes intimating that beside the offices of Priests and Ministers there was an Episcopal dignity which was apex super omnia a height above all imployments established at Alexandria and how soon that was is soon computed for Philo lived in our blessed Saviour's time and was Embassador to the Emperor Caius and survived S. Mark a little But S. Jerome will strike up this business A Marco Evangelistâ ad Heraclam usque Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri Aegypti semper unum ex se electum in celsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant And again Marcus interpres Apostoli Petri Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episcopus The same is witnessed by S. Gregory Nicephorus and divers others Now although the ordination of S. Mark is not specified in the Acts as innumerable multitudes of things more and scarce any thing at all of any of the twelve but S. Peter nothing of S. James the son of Thaddaeus nor of Alpheus but the Martyrdom of one of them nothing of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas of Simon zelotes of S. Jude the Apostle scarce any of their names recorded yet no wise man can distrust the faith of such records which all Christendom hitherto so far as we know hath acknowledged as authentick and these ordinations cannot possibly go less than Apostolical being done in the Apostles times to whom the care of all the Churches was concredited they seeing and beholding several successions in several Churches before their death as here at Alexandria first S. Mark then Anianus made Bishop five or six years before the death of S. Peter and S. Paul But yet who it was that ordained S. Mark Bishop of Alexandria for Bishop he was most certainly is not obscurely intimated by the most excellent man S. Gelasius in the Roman Council Marcus à Petro Apostolo in Aegyptum directus verbum veritatis praedicavit gloriosè consummavit Martyrium S. Peter sent him into Aegypt to found a Church and therefore would furnish him with all things requisite for so great imployment and that could be no less than the ordinary power Apostolical SECT XVII S. Linus and S. Clement at Rome BUT in the Church of Rome the ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and their successions during the times of the Apostles is very manifest by a concurrent testimony of old writers Fundantes igitur instruentes beati Apostoli Ecclesiam Lino Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt Hujus Lini Paulus in his quae sunt ad Timotheum Epistolis meminit Succedit autem ei Anacletus post eum tertio loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum sortitur Clemens qui vidit ipsos Apostolos contulit cum eis cum adhuc insonantem praedicationem Apostolorum traditionem ante oculos haberet So S. Irenaeus Memoratur autem ex comitibus Pauli Crescens quidam ad Gallias esse praefectus Linus vero Clemens in urbe Româ Ecclesiae praefuisse Many more testimonies there are of these mens being ordained Bishops of Rome by the Apostles as of Tertullian Optatus S. Augustin and S. Hierom. But I will not cloy my Reader with variety of one dish and be tedious in a thing so evident and known SECT XVIII S. Polycarp at Smyrna and divers others S. JOHN ordained S. Polycarp Bishop at Smyrna Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Johanne collocatum refert sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit proinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant So Tertullian The Church of Smyrna saith that Polycarp was placed there by Saint John as the Church of Rome saith that Clement was ordained there by S. Peter and other Churches have those whom the Apostles made to be their Bishops Polycarpus autem non solum ab Apostolis edoctus sed etiam ab Apostolis in Asiâ in eâ quae est Smyrnis Ecclesia constitutus Episcopus testimonium his perhibent quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui usque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo c. The same also is witnessed by S. Jerome and Eusebius Quoniam autem valde longum est in tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum successiones enumerare to use S. Irenaeus his expression It were an infinite labour to reckon up all those whom the Apostles made Bishops with their own hands as Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens Caius at Thessalonica Archippus at Colosse Onesimus at Ephesus Anâ—ipas at Pergamus Epaphroditus at Philippi Crescens among the Gaules Evodias at Antioch Sosipater at Iconium Erastus in Macedonia Trophimus at Arles Jason at Tarsus Silas at Corinth Onesiphorus at Colophon Quartus at Berytus Paul the Proconsul at Narbona besides many more whose names are not recorded in Scripture as these fore-cited are so many as Eusebius counts impossible to enumerate it shall therefore suffice to summe up this digest of their Acts and Ordinations in those general foldings used by the Fathers saying that the Apostles did ordain Bishops in all Churches that the succession of Bishops down from the Apostles first Ordination of them was the only argument to prove their Churches Catholick and their adversaries who could not do so to be Heretical This also is very evident and of great consideration in the first Ages while their tradition was clear and evident and not so be-pudled as it since hath been with the mixture of Hereticks striving to spoil that which did so much mischief to their causes Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis aut Apostolicis viris habuerit
concurrence of Jurisdiction this must be considered distinctly 1. Then In the first founding of Churches the Apostles did appoint Presbyters and inferiour Ministers with a power of baptizing preaching consecrating and reconciling in privato foro but did not in every Church at the first founding it constitute a Bishop This is evident in Crete in Ephesus in Corinth at Rome at Antioch 2. Where no Bishops were constituted there the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their own hands There comes upon me saith S. Paul daily the care or supravision of all the Churches Not all absolutely for not all of the Circumcision but all of his charge with which he was once charged and of which he had not exonerated himself by constituting Bishops there for of these there is the same reason And again If any man obey not our word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie him to me by an Epistle so he charges the Thessalonians and therefore of this Church S. Paul as yet clearly kept the power in his own hands So that the Church was ever in all the parts of it governed by Episcopal or Apostolical authority 3. For ought appears in Scripture the Apostles never gave any external or coercitive jurisdiction in publick and criminal causes nor yet power to ordain Rites or Ceremonies or to inflict censures to a Colledge of meer Presbyters * The contrary may be greedily swallowed and I know not with how great confidence and prescribing prejudice but there is not in all Scripture any commission from Christ any ordinance or warrant from the Apostles to any Presbyter or Colledge of Presbyters without a Bishop or express delegation of Apostolical authority tanquam vicario suo as to his substitute in absence of the Bishop or Apostle to inflict any censures or take cognizance of persons and causes criminal Presbyters might be surrogati in locum Episcopi absentis but never had any ordinary jurisdiction given them by vertue of their ordination or any commission from Christ or his Apostles This we may best consider by induction of particulars 1. There was a Presbytery at Jerusalem but they had a Bishop always and the Colledge of the Apostles sometimes therefore whatsoever act they did it was in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishop and Apostles Now it cannot be denied both that the Apostles were superiour to all the Presbyters in Jerusalem and also had power alone to govern the Church I say they had power to govern alone for they had the government of the Church alone before they ordain'd the first Presbyters that is before there were any of capacity to joyn with them they must do it themselves and then also they must retain the same power for they could not lose it by giving Orders Now if they had a power of sole jurisdiction then the Presbyters being in some publick acts in conjunction with the Apostles cannot challenge a right of governing as affixed to their Order they only assisting in subordination and by dependency This only by the way In Jerusalem the Presbyters were something more than ordinary and were not meer Presbyters in the present and limited sence of the word For Barnabas and Judas and Silas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Luke calls them were of that Presbytery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were Rulers and Prophets Chief men amongst the Brethren and yet called Elders or Presbyters though of Apostolical power and authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Oecumenius For truth is that divers of them were ordained Apostles with an Vnlimited jurisdiction not fixed upon any See that they also might together with the twelve exire in totum mundum * So that in this Presbytery either they were more than meer Presbyters as Barnabas and Judas and Silas men of Apostolical power and they might well be in conjunction with the twelve and with the Bishop they were of equal power not by vertue of their Presbyterate but by their Apostolate or if they were but meer Presbyters yet because it is certain and proved and confessed that the Apostles had power to govern the Church alone this their taking meer Presbyteros in partem regiminis was a voluntary act and from this example was derived to other Churches and then it is most true that Presbyteros in communi Ecclesiam regere was rather consuetudine Ecclesiae dominicae dispositionis veritate to use S. Hierom's own expression for this is more evident than that Bishops do eminere caeteris by custom rather than Divine institution For if the Apostles might rule the Church alone then that the Presbyters were taken into the Number was a voluntary act of the Apostles and although fitting to be retained where the same reasons do remain and circumstances concur yet not necessary because not affixed to their Order not Dominicae dispositionis veritate and not laudable when those reasons cease and there is an emergency of contrary causes 2. The next Presbytery we read of is at Antioch but there we find no acts either of concurrent or single jurisdiction but of ordination indeed we do and that performed by such men as S. Paul was and Barnabas for they were two of the Prophets reckoned in the Church of Antioch but I do not remember them to be called Presbyters in that place to be sure they were not meer Presbyters as we now Understand the word as I proved formerly 3. But in the Church of Ephesus there was a Colledge of Presbyters and they were by the Spirit of God called Bishops and were appointed by him to be Pastors of the Church of God This must do it or nothing In quo spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos In whom the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops There must lye the exigence of the argument and if we can find who is meant by vos we shall I hope gain the truth * S. Paul sent for the Presbyters or Elders to come from Ephesus to Miletus and to them he spoke ** It 's true but that 's not all the vos For there were present at that Sermon Sopater and Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius and Timothy and Tychicus and Trophimus And although he sent to Ephesus as to the Metropolis and there many Elders were either accidentally or by ordinary residence yet those were not all Elders of that Church but of all Asia in the Scripture sence the lesser Asia For so in the Preface of his Sermon S. Paul intimates Ye know that from the first day I came into Asia after what manner I have been with you at all seasons His whole conversation in Asia was not confined to Ephesus and yet those Elders who were present were witnesses of it all and therefore were of dispersed habitation and so it is more clearly inferred from verse 25. And now behold I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the Kingdom of God c. It was a travel to preach to all that were present and therefore
Saint Polycarpe at Smyrna many years before Saint John writ his Revelation 6. Lastly That no jurisdiction was in the Ephesine Presbyters except a delegate and subordinate appears beyond all exception by Saint Paul's first Epistle to Timothy establishing in the person of Timothy power of coercitive jurisdiction over Presbyters and ordination in him alone without the conjunction of any in commission with him for ought appears either there or elsewhere * 4. The same also in the case of the Cretan Presbyters is clear For what power had they of Jurisdiction For that is it we now speak of If they had none before Saint Titus came we are well enough at Crete If they had why did Saint Paul take it from them to invest Titus with it Or if he did not to what purpose did he send Titus with all those powers before mentioned For either the Presbyters of Crete had jurisdiction in causes criminal equal to Titus after his coming or they had not If they had not then either they had no jurisdiction at all or whatsoever it was in subordination to him they were his inferiours and he their ordinary Judge and Governour 5. One thing more before this be left must be considered concerning the Church of Corinth for there was power of excommunication in the Presbytery when they had no Bishop for they had none of diverse years after the founding of the Church and yet Saint Paul reproves them for not ejecting the incestuous person out of the Church * This is it that I said before that the Apostles kept the jurisdiction in their hands where they had founded a Church and placed no Bishop for in this case of the Corinthian incest the Apostle did make himself the sole Judge For I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already and then secondly Saint Paul gives the Church of Corinth commission and substitution to proceed in this cause in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit that is My power My authority for so he explains himself my Spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ to deliver him over to Satan And 3. As all this power is delegate so it is but declarative in the Corinthians for Saint Paul had given sentence before and they of Corinth were to publish it 4. This was a Commission given to the whole Assembly and no more concerns the Presbyters than the people and so some have contended but so it is but will serve neither of their turns neither for an independent Presbytery nor a conjunctive popularity As for Saint Paul's reproving them for not inflicting censures on the peccant I have often heard it confidently averred but never could see ground for it The suspicion of it is ver 2. And ye are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you Taken away But by whom That 's the Question Not by them to be sure For taken away from you implies that it is by the power of another not by their act for no man can take away any thing from himself He may put it away not take it the expression had been very imperfect if this had been his meaning * Well then In all these instances viz. of Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Crete and Corinth and these are all I can find in Scripture of any consideration in the present Question all the jurisdiction was originally in the Apostles while there was no Bishop or in the Bishop when there was any And yet that the Presbyters were joyned in the ordering Church affairs I will not deny to wit by voluntary assuming them in partem sollicitudinis and by delegation of power Apostolical or Episcopal and by way of assistance in acts deliberative and consiliary though I find this no where specified but in the Church of Jerusalem where I proved that the Elders were men of more power than meer Presbyters men of Apostolical authority But here lies the issue and strain of the Question Presbyters had no jurisdiction in causes criminal and pertaining to the publick Regiment of the Church by vertue of their order or without particular substitution and delegation For there is not in all Scripture any Commission given by Christ to meer Presbyters no Divine institution of any power of Regiment in the Presbytery no constitution Apostolical that meer Presbyters should either alone or in conjunction with the Bishop govern the Church no example in all Scripture of any censure inflicted by any mere Presbyters either upon Clergy or Laity no specification of any power that they had so to do but to Churches where Colledges of Presbyters were resident Bishops were sent by Apostolical ordination not only with power of imposition of hands but of excommunication of taking cognisance even of causes and actions of Presbyters themselves as to Titus and Timothy the Angel of the Church of Ephesus and there is also example of delegation of power of censures from the Apostle to a Church where many Presbyters were fixt as in the case of the Corinthian Delinquent before specified which delegation was needless if coercitive jurisdiction by censures had been by divine right in a Presbyter or a whole Colledge of them Now then return we to the consideration of S. Hierom's saying The Church was governed saith he communi Presbyterorum consilio by the common Councel of Presbyters But 1. Quo jure was this That the Bishops are Superiour to those which were then called Presbyters by custom rather than Divine disposition Saint Hierome affirms but that Presbyters were joyned with the Apostles and Bishops at first by what right was that Was not that also by custom and condescension rather than by Divine disposition Saint Hierom does not say but it was For he speaks only of matter of fact not of right It might have been otherwise though de facto it was so in some places * 2. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is true in the Church of Jerusalem where the Elders were Apostolical men and had Episcopal authority and something superadded as Barnabas and Judas and Silas for they had the authority and power of Bishops and an unlimited Diocess besides though afterwards Silas was fixt upon the See of Corinth But yet even at Jerusalem they actually had a Bishop who was in that place superiour to them in Jurisdiction and therefore does clearly evince that the common Councel of Presbyters is no argument against the superiority of a Bishop over them * 3. Communi Presbyterorum consilio is also true because the Apostles call'd themselves Presbyters as Saint Paul and Saint John in their Epistles Now at the first many Prophets many Elders for the words are sometimes used in common were for a while resident in particular Churches and did govern in common As at Antioch were Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Paul Communi horum Presbyterorum consilio the Church of
made in us by it 28 b. With Baptism Confirmation was usually administred 29 b. Berengarius The Pope forced him to recant his errour about Transubstantiation in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. Bind What it means in the promise of Christ 736 45 46 47. and 486. Bishop The benefits that England has received in several ages from the Bishops Order Ep. dedic to Episcop asserted They were the Apostles successors 48 § 4. In what sense they were so 47 § 3. Saint James called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. The Angel mentioned in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the Apocalypse means the Bishop 57 § 9. That Bishops were successors in their office to the Apostles was the sense of Antiquity 59 § 10. The office of a Bishop was not inconsistent with that of an Evangelist 69 § 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. The authority and text of S. Hierom against the Prelacy of Bishops considered 77 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in those words in quos Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Concerning the testimony of S. Hierome taken out of his Commentary in Ep. ad Tit. usually urged against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and § 44. and pag. 144. In what sense it is true that Bishops were not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never styled Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining of a Bishop 98 § 31. Pope Pelagius not lawfully ordained Bishop according to the Canon 98 § 31. Why a Bishop cannot be made per saltum 101 § 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Ordination of a Bishop but not the Jurisdiction 102 § 32. Novatus was ordained by a Bishop without the assistance of other Clergy 104 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter in the Ceremony 105 § 32. Concerning Ordination in the Reformed Churches performed without Bishops 105 § 32. He could suspend or depose alone without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. The latitude or extent of the Bishop's power 120 § 36. It encroaches not upon the royal power ibid. What persons are under the Bishop's jurisdiction 123 § 36. In the Primitive Church Presbyters might not officiate without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. The Bishop for his acts of judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyters assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's behalf 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose a Presbyter 147 § 44. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The African Christians of Byzac chose to suffer martyrdome rather then hazard the succession of Bishops 149 § 45. In the first Council of Constantinople he is declared an heretick though he believe aright that separates from his Bishop 151 § 48. The great honour that belongs to Bishops 153 § 48. It was not unlawful for Bishops to take secular employments 157 § 49. Christian Emperours allowed appeals in secular affairs from secular tribunals to that of the Bishop 160 § 49. They used in the Primitive Church to be Embassadours for their Princes 161 § 49. The Bishop might do any office of piety though of secular burthen 161 § 49. By the Law of God one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproveth the Patriarch of Constantinople for calling himself universal Bishop 310. If a secular Prince give a safe conduct the Romanists teach it binds not the Bishop who is under him 341. Socrates his censure of their judicial proceedings in the Primitive Church 994 n. 17. Body Berengarius maintained in Rome That by the power of God one body could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a body is in place 226 § 11. What a body is 236. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are in S. Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Aquinas affirmeth that the body of Christ is in the Elements not after the manner of a body but a substance This notion considered 238 § 11. That consequence That if two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places considered 243 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. The Romanists absurdities in explicating the nature of the conversion of the Elements into the Body of Christ 247 § 11. C. Canons THat the Canons of the Apostles so called are authentick 89 § 24. Carnality What it is in Scripture 724 n. 53. Of the use of the word Carnal in Scripture 774 n. 16. Catechizing The excellent use of Catechizing Children 30. b. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Certainty It may be where is no evidence 686 n. 72. Charity The great Charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. The uncharitableness of that of Rome ibid. Charity gives being to all vertues 650 n. 56. Children How God punisheth the fathers upon the Children 725. God never imputes the father's sin to the child so as to inflict eternal punishment but temporal onely 725 n. 56. This he does onely in very great crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. and before the Gospel was published not since 726 n. 62. Rules of deportment for those Children who fear a curse descending upon them from their sinful parents 738 n. 93. The state of the unbaptized 897. Chorepiscopi They had Episcopal Ordination but not Jurisdiction 102 § 32. The institution of them what ends it served 142 § 43. Christ. The Romanists teach that Christ being our Judge is not fit to be our Advocate 329 c. 2. § 9. The Article of Christ's descent into hell omitted in some Creeds 440. We are by him redeemed from the state of spiritual infirmity 779 n. 27. Christian. The sum of Christian Religion 445. Upon what motives most men imbrace that Religion 460. Chrysostome His notion of a sinner 760
Disswasive from Popery The First Part. THE Introduction 285 Chap. I. The doctrine of the Roman Church in the controverted Articles is neither Catholick Apostolick nor Primitive 286 Sect. 1. That our Religion is but that their Religion is not such is proved in general first from their challenging power of making new Articles and secondly from the practice of their Indices Expurgatory with some instances of their Innovating 286 2. They Innovate in pretending power to make new Articles 290 3. They did Innovate in their doctrine of Indulgences 291 4. In their doctrine and practice about Purgatory 294 5. In their doctrine of Transubstantiation 297 6. They Innovate in their doctrine of the Half-Communion 30◠7. In that they suffer not their publick Prayers to be in a language vulgarly understood 303 8. In requiring the adoration of Images 305 9. In picturing God the Father and the Bl. Trinity 307 10. In arrogating to the Pope an universal Bishoprick 308 11. A Miscellany of many other doctrines and practices wherein that Church has Innovated Chap. II. They maintain Doctrines and Practices in opposition to us that are direct impieties and certainly destroy good life 312 Sect. 1. Such is their doctrine of Repentance 312 2. And Confession 315 3. Of Penances and Satisfactions 316 4 5. Their doctrine about Pardon and Indulgences Contrition and Satisfaction 318 6. Satisfaction and habitual sins distinction of Mortal and Venial sins by which they contract their Repentance and their Sins and mistake in cases of Conscience 322 7. Their teaching now of late that a probable opinion for which the authority of one Doctor is sufficient may in practice be safely followed 324 8. That Prayers are accepted by God ex opere operato 327 9. Such is their practice of Invocating dead Saints as Deliverers 329 10. And of Exorcising possessed persons 333 11. Sacramentals such as Holy-water Paschal-wax Agnus Dei c. 336 12. The worship of Images is Idolatry and to worship the Host. 337 13. The Summ and Conclusion of the whole Chapter 337 Chap. III. Their Docrines are such as destroy Christian Society in general and Monarchy in particular 340 Sect. 1. As equivocation mental reservation taught and defended by them c. 340 Their teaching that faith is not to be kept with Hereticks dispensing with Oaths Dissolving the bonds of duty 341 They teach the Pope has power to dispense with all the Laws of God and to dissolve contracts 2. Their Exemption of the Clergie from the secular authority as to their Estates and Persons even in matters of Theft Murder and Treason c. and the divine right of the seal of Confession 343 3. By subjecting all Christian Kings to the Pope who can as they teach depose and excommunicate Kings and that Subjects are bound to expel Heretical Kings The Second Part of the Disswasive THe Introduction containing an answer to the Fourth Appendix of J. S. his Sure-footing 351 Lib. I. Sect. 1. Of the Church that the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their Faith Of Councils and their authority the Canon Law and the great contrariety in it Of the Pope of the notes of the Church 381 2. Of the sufficiency of H. Scripture to Salvation which is the foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion The sufficiency of Scripture proved by Tradition 405 3. Of Traditions and those doctrines and practices that most need the help of that Topick as of the Trinity Paedo-Baptism Baptism by Hereticks and the Lords day 420 4. There is nothing of necessity to be believed which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 436 5. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confession of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick doctrine 446 First They do it and pretend to a power of doing it Secondly That it agrees with their interest so to do 452 6. They use indirect ways to bring their new Articles into credit e. g. the device of Indices Expurgatorii 454 First That the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge Catholick Authors Secondly That they purged the very Indices of the Father's works Thirdly They did purge the Writings of the Fathers too 7. While they enlarge the Faith they destroy Charity 459 8. The insecurity of the Roman Religion 466 9. That the Church of Rome does teach for doctrines the commandments of men 471 10. Of the Seal of Confession the First Instance 473 11. The Second Instance is the imposing Auricular Confession upon Consciences as a Commandment of God 477 First For which there is no ground in holy Scripture 479 Secondly Nor in Ecclesiastical Tradition either of the Latin or Greek Church 491 Lib. II. Sect. 1. Of Indulgences and Pilgrimages 495 2. Of Purgatory The testimonies of Roffensis Polyd. Virgil c. Alphonsus à Castro are vindicated 500 It is proved that Purgatory is not a consequent to the doctrine of Prayer for the dead 501 The Fathers made Prayers for those whom they believed not to be in Purgatory 502 And such Prayers are in the Roman Missal 505. The Greek and Latin Fathers teach that no Soul enters Heaven till the day of Judgment The doctrine of Purgatory was no Article in S. Austin's time 506. It was not owned by the Greek Fathers 510. It is directly contrary to the ancient Fathers of the Latin Church 512 3. Of Transubstantiation wherein the authorities out of Scotus Odo Cameracensis Roffensis Biel Alph. à Castro Pet. Lombard Durandus Justine Martyr Eusebius S. Augustine are justified from the exceptions of the Adversaries And it is proved that the Council of Laterane did not determine the Article of Transubstantiation but brake up abruptly without making any Canons at all 516 4. Of the Half-Communion 528 Of the Decree of the Council of Constance 528. The authority of S. Ambrose 530. and S. Cyprian 531 5. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown tongue 532 S. Basils authority S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas Lyra. 6. Of the Worship of Images 535 1o. The Quotations vindicated 536. of S. Cyril Chrysostom Epiphanius Austin Council of Eliberis Nicene II. Francfort First The Council of Francfort condemned the Nicene II. 540 Secondly They commanded that it should not be called a General Council ibid. Thirdly The acts of it are in the Capitular of the Emperor written in the time of the Synod 541 Of Tertullian 541. Clemens Alexandrinus 542. Origen 543. 2o. The Quotations alledged by them answered as of S. Basil S. Athanasius 544. S. Chrysostom 545. 3o. The truth confirmed 545 First Image-worship came from Simon Magus ibid. Secondly Heathens spake against it 546 Thirdly Christians did abominate it ibid. Fourthly The Heathens never charged the Christians with it ibid. Fifthly The Primitive Fathers never taught those distinctions that the Papists use to discern lawful Idolatry from Heathen Idolatry 547 Sixthly The Second Commandment is against it ibid.
omnium In obsequio scil quotidiano perpetuoque divinae religionis ritu Atque id noverunt fideles quomodo diebus singulis mane vespere orationes fundantur ad Dominum quomodo pro omni mundo Regibus omnibus qui in sublimitate positi sunt obsecrationes in Ecclesia fiant Sed forte quis dixerit pro omnibus quod ait tantum fideles intelligi voluisse At id verum non esse quae sequuntur ostendunt Denique ait pro Regibus neque enim tunc Reges Deum colebant It is evident by this that the custom of the Church was not only in the celebration of the holy Communion but in all her other Offices to say this Prayer not only for Christs Catholick Church but for all the world 25. And that the charity of the Church might not be misconstrued he produces his warrant S. Paul not only expresly commands us to pray for all men but adds by way of instance for Kings who then were unchristian and heathen in all the world But this form of Prayer is almost word for word in S. Ambrose Haec regula Ecclesiastica est tradita à Magistro gentium qua utuntur Sacerdotes nostri ut pro omnibus supplicent deprecantes pro Regibus orantes pro iis quibus sublimis potestas credita est ut in justitia veritate gubernent postulantes pro iis qui in necessitate varia sunt ut eruti liberati Deum collaudent incolumitatis Authorem So far goes our form of Prayer But S. Ambrose adds Referentes quoque gratiarum actiones And so it was with us in the first Service-books of King Edward and the Preface to the Prayer engages us to a thanksgiving but I know not how it was stoln out the Preface still remaining to chide their unwariness that took down that part of the building and yet left the gate standing But if the Reader please to be satisfied concerning this Prayer which indeed is the longest in our Service-book and of greatest consideration he may see it taken up from the universal custom of the Church and almost in all the words of the old Liturgies if he will observe the Liturgies themselves of S. Basil S Chrysostome and the concurrent testimonies of Tertullian S. Austin Celestine Gennadius Prosper and Theophylact. 26. I shall not need to make any excuses for the Churches reading those portions of Scripture which we call Epistles and Gospels before the Communion They are Scriptures of the choicest and most profitable transaction And let me observe this thing That they are not only declarations of all the mysteries of our redemption and rules of good life but this choice is of the greatest compliance with the necessities of the Christian Church that can be imagined For if we deny to the people a liberty of reading Scriptures may they not complain as Isaac did against the inhabitants of the land that the Philistines had spoiled his well and the fountains of living water If a free use to all of them and of all Scriptures were permitted should not the Church her self have more cause to complain of the infinite licentiousness and looseness of interpretations and of the commencement of ten thousand errors which would certainly be consequent to such permission Reason and Religion will chide us in the first reason and experience in the latter And can the wit of man conceive a better temper and expedient than that such Scriptures only or principally should be laid before them all in daily Offices which contain in them all the mysteries of our redemption and all the rules of good life which two things are done by the Gospels and Epistles respectively the first being a Record of the life and death of our blessed Saviour the latter instructions for the edification of the Church in pious and Christian conversation and all this was done with so much choice that as obscure places are avoided by design as much as could be so the very assignation of them to certain festivals the appropriation of them to solemn and particular days does entertain the understandings of the people with notions proper to the mystery and distinct from impertinent and vexatious questions And were this design made something more minute and applicable to the various necessities of times and such choice Scriptures permitted indifferently which might be matter of necessity and great edification the people of the Church would have no reason to complain that the fountains of our Saviour were stopp'd from them nor the Rulers of the Church that the mysteriousness of Scripture were abused by the petulancy of the people to consequents harsh impious and unreasonable in despight of government in exauctoration of the power of superiours or for the commencement of Schisms and Heresies The Church with great wisdom hath first held this torch out and though for great reasons intervening and hindering it cannot be reduced to practice yet the Church hath shewn her desire to avoid the evil that is on both hands and she hath shewn the way also if it could have been insisted in But however this choice of the more remarkable portions of Scripture is so reasonable and proportionable to the nature of the thing that because the Gospels and Epistles bear their several shares of the design the Gospel representing the foundation and prime necessities of Christianity and the mysterious parts of our Redemption the summ the faith and the hopes of Christianity therefore it is attested by a ceremony of standing up it being a part of the confession of faith but the Epistles containing superstructures upon that foundation are read with religious care but not made formal or solemn by any other circumstance The matter contains in it sufficient of reason and of proportion but nothing of necessity except it be by accident and as authority does intervene by way of sanction 27. But that this reading of Epistles and Gospels before the Communion was one of the earliest customs of the Church I find it affirmed by Rabanus Maurus Sed enim initio mos iste cantandi non erat qui nunc in Ecclesia ante sacrificium celebratur Sed tamen epistolae Pauli recitabantur sanctum Evangelium The custom of reading S. Paul's Epistles and the holy Gospel before the Sacrament was from the beginning Some other portions of Scripture were read upon emergent occasions instead of the Epistle which still retain the name of Epistle but it is so seldom that it happens upon two Sundays only in the year upon Trinity Sunday and the 25. Sunday after upon Saints days it happens oftner because the story requires a particular rememoration and therefore is very often taken out of the Acts of the Apostles but being in substitution only of the ordinary portion of the Epistle of S. Paul or other the Apostles it keeps the name of the first design though the change be upon good reason and much propriety 28. There remains
great remedy for the great necessity And it was ever much valued in the Church insomuch that Nectarius would by no means take investiture of his Patriarchal Sea until he had obtained the benediction of Diodorus the Bishop of Cilicia Eudoxia the Empress brought her son Theodosius to S. Chrysostome for his blessing and S. Austin and all his company received it of Innocentius Bishop of Carthage It was so solemn in all marriages that the marrying of persons was called Benediction So it was in the fourth Council of Carthage Sponsus sponsa cum benedicendi sunt à Sacerdote c. benedicendi for married And in all Church Offices it was so solemn that by a Decree of the Council of Agatho A. D. 380. it was decreed ante benedictionem Sacerdotis populus egredi non praesumat By the way only here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for two parts of the English Liturgy For the benediction in the Office of marriage by the authority of the Council of Carthage and for concluding the Office of Communion with the Priests or Bishops benediction by warrant of the Council of Agatho which Decrees having been derived into the practice of the universal Church for very many ages is in no hand to be undervalued lest we become like Esau and we miss it when we most need it For my own particular I shall still press on to receive the benediction of holy Church till at last I shall hear a Venite benedicti and that I be reckoned amongst those blessed Souls who come to God by the ministeries of his own appointment and will not venture upon that neglect against which the piety and wisdom of all Religions in the world infinitely do prescribe 44. Now the advantages of confidence which I have upon the forms of benedicton in the Common-Prayer-Book are therefore considerable because God himself prescribed a set form of blessing the people appointing it to be done not in the Priests extempore but in an established form of words and because as the authority of a prescript form is from God so that this form may be also highly warranted the solemn blessing at the end of the Communion is in the very words of S. Paul 45. For the forms of Absolution in the Liturgy though I shall not enter into consideration of the Question concerning the quality of the Priests power which is certainly a very great ministery yet I shall observe the rare temper and proportion which the Church of England uses in commensurating the forms of Absolution to the degrees of preparation and necessity At the beginning of the Morning and Evening Prayer after a general Confession usually recited before the devotion is high and pregnant whose parts like fire enkindle one another there is a form of Absolution in general declarative and by way of proposition In the Office of the Communion because there are more acts of piety and repentance previous and presupposed there the Churches form of Absolution is optative and by way of intercession But in the Visitation of the sick when it is supposed and enjoyned that the penitent shall disburthen himself of all the clamorous loads upon his conscience the Church prescribes a medicinal form by way of delegate authority that the parts of justification may answer to the parts of good life For as the penitent proceeds so does the Church pardon and repentance being terms of relation they grow up together till they be complete this the Church with greatest wisdom supposes to be at the end of our life grace by that time having all its growth that it will have here and therefore then also the pardon of sins is of another nature than it ever was before it being now more actual and complete whereas before it was in fieri in the beginnings and smaller increases and upon more accidents apt to be made imperfect and revocable So that the Church of England in these manners of dispensing the power of the Keys does cut off all disputings and impertinent wranglings whether the Priests power were Judicial or declarative for possibly it is both and it is optative too and something else yet for it is an emanation from all the parts of his Ministery and he never absolves but he preaches or prays or administers a Sacrament for this power of remission is a transcendent passing through all the parts of the Priestly Offices For the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are the promises and the threatnings of the Scripture and the prayers of the Church and the Word and the Sacraments and all these are to be dispensed by the Priest and these keys are committed to his Ministery and by the operation of them all he opens and shuts Heaven gates ministerially and therefore S. Paul calls it verbum reconciliationis and says it is dispensed by Ministers as by Embassadors or Delegates and therefore it is an excellent temper of the Church so to prescribe her forms of Absolution as to shew them to be results of the whole Priestly Office of Preaching of dispensing Sacraments of spiritual Cure and authoritative Deprecation And the benefit which pious and well disposed persons receive by these publick Ministeries as it lies ready formed in our blessed Saviours promise erit solutum in coelis so men will then truly understand when they are taught to value every instrument of grace or comfort by the exigence of a present need as in a sadness of spirit in an unquiet conscience in the arrest of death 46. I shall not need to procure advantages to the reputation of the Common-Prayer by considering the imperfections of whatsoever hath been offered in its stead but yet a 1 form of worship composed to the dishonour of the Reformation accusing it of darkness and intolerable inconvenience 2 a direction without a rule 3 a rule without restraint 4 a prescription leaving an indifferency to a possibility of licentiousness 5 an office without any injunction of external acts of worship not prescribing so much as kneeling 6 an office that only once names reverence but forbids it in the ordinary instance and enjoyns it in no particular 7 an office that leaves the form of ministration of Sacraments so indifferently that if there be any form of words essential the Sacrament is in much danger to become invalid for want of provision of due forms of Ministration 8 an office that complies with no precedent of Scripture nor of any ancient Church 9 that must of necessity either want authority or it must prefer novelty before antiquity 10 that accuses all the Primitive Church of indiscretion at the least 11 that may be abused by the indiscretion or ignorance or malice of any man that uses it 12 into which Heresie or blasphemy may creep without possibility of prevention 13 that hath no external forms to entertain the fancy of the more common spirits 14 nor any allurement to perswade and entice its adversaries 15 nor any means of adunation and uniformity amongst its
part In the mean time I shall set down those grounds of Religion and reason upon which publick Liturgie relies and by the strength of which it is to be justified against all opposition and pretences Sect. 66. 1. THE Church hath a power given to her by the Spirit of God and a command to describe publick forms of Liturgie For I consider that the Church is a Family Jesus Christ is the Master of the Family the holy Spirit is the great Dispensator of all such graces the family needs and are in order to the performance of their Duty the Apostles and their Successors the Rulers of the Church are Stewards of the manifold graces of God whose office is to provide every mans portion and to dispence the graces and issues Evangelical by way of Ministry Who is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord shall make ruler of his Houshold It was our blessed Saviour's Question and Saint Paul answered it Let a man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the mysteries of God Now the greatest Ministery of the Gospel is by way of prayer most of the graces of the Spirit being obtained by prayer and such offices which operate by way of impetration and benediction and consecration which are but the several instances of prayer Prayer certainly is the most effectual and mysterious ministery and therefore since the Holy Ghost hath made the Rulers of the Church Stewards of the mysteries they are by vertue of their Stewardship Presidents of Prayer and publick Offices Sect. 67. 2. WHICH also is certain because the Priest is to stand between God and the People and to represent all their needs to the throne of grace He is a Prophet and shall pray for thee said God concerning Abraham to Abimelech And therefore the Apostles appointed inferiour Officers in the Church that they might not be hindred in their great work but we will give our selves to the word of God and to prayer And therefore in our greatest need in our sickness and last scene of our lives we are directed to send for the Elders of the Church that they may pray over us and God hath promised to hear them and if prayer be of any concernment towards the final condition of our souls certainly it is to be ordered guided and disposed by them who watch for our souls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they that must give account to God for them Sect. 68. 3. NOW if the Rulers of the Church are Presidents of the rites of Religion and by consequence of Prayer either they are to order publick prayers or private For private I suppose most men will be so desirous of their liberty as to preserve that in private where they have no concernments but their own for matter of order or scandal But for publick if there be any such thing as Government and that prayers may be spoiled by disorder or made ineffectual by confusion or by any accident may become occasion of a scandal it is certain that they must be ordered as all other things are in which the publick is certainly concerned that is by the Rulers of the Church who are answerable if there be any miscarriage in the publick Thus far I suppose there will not be much question with those who allow set forms but would have themselves be the Composers They would have the Ministers pray for the people but the Ministers shall not be prescribed to the Rulers of the Church shall be the Presidents of religious rites but then they will be the Rulers therefore we must proceed farther and because I will not now enter into the Question who are left by Christ to govern his Church I will proceed upon such grounds which I hope may be sufficient to determine this Question and yet decline the other Therefore Sect. 69. SINCE the Spirit of God is the Spirit of supplication they to whom the greatest portion of the Spirit is promised are most competent persons to pray for the people and to prescribe forms of prayer But the promise of the Spirit is made to the Church in general to her in her united capacity to the whole Church first then to particular Churches then in the lowest seat of the Category to single persons And we have title to the Promises by being Members of the Church and in the Communion of Saints which beside the stylus curiae the form of all the great Promises being in general and comprehensive terms appears in this that when any single person is out of this communion he hath also no title to the promises which yet he might if he had any upon his own stock not derivative from the Church Now then I infer if any single persons will have us to believe without possibility of proof for so it must be that they pray with the Spirit for how shall they be able to prove the Spirit actually to abide in those single persons then much rather must we believe it of the Church which by how much the more general it is so much the more of the Spirit she is likely to have and then if there be no errors in the matter the Church hath the advantage and probability on her side and if there be an error in matter in either of them neither of them have the Spirit or they make not the true use of it But the publick spirit in all reason is to be trusted before the private when there is a contestation the Church being prior potior in promissis she hath a greater and prior title to the Spirit And why the Church hath not the spirit of prayer in her compositions as well as any of her children I desire once for all to be satisfied upon true grounds either of reason or revelation And if she have whether she have not as much as any single person If she have but as much then there is as much reason in respect of the divine assistance that the Church should make the forms as that any single Minister should and more reason in respect of order and publick influence and care and charge of souls but if she have a greater portion of the Spirit than a single person that is if the whole be greater than the part or the publick better than the private then it is evident that the Spirit of the Church in respect of the divine assistance is chiefly and in respect of order is only to be relied upon for publick provisions and forms of prayer Sect. 70. BUT now if the Church in her united capacity makes prayers for the people they cannot be supposed to be other than limited and determined forms for it is not practicable or indeed imaginable that a Synod of Church Governours be they who they will so they be of Christs appointment should meet in every Church and pray as every man list their Counsels are united and their results are conclusions and final determinations which like general propositions are
custom of the Church was for them who were in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Pulpit to read their offices and devotions They read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's the word in the Canon Those things which signifie the greatest or first Antiquity are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was spoken proverbially to signifie ancient things And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that if these Fathers chose these words as Grammarians the singers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were such as sung ancient Hymns of Primitive antiquity which also is the more credible because the persons were noted and distinguished by their imployment as a thing known by so long an use till it came to be their appellative * The 17th and 18th Canons command that Lessons and Psalms should be said interchangeably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the same Liturgy that 's the word or office of prayers to be said always at Nones and Vespers This shews the manner of executing their office of Psalmists and Readers they did not sing or say ex tempore but they read Prayers and Psalms and sung them out of a Book neither were they brought in fresh and new at every meeting but it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still the same form of prayers without variation Sect. 94. BUT then if we remember how ancient this office was in the Church and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Readers and Singers were Clerical offices deputed for publick ministry about prayers and devotions in the Church for so we are told by Simeon Thessalonicensis in particular concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he does dictate the hymns to the singers and then of the singers there is no question and that these two offices were so ancient in the Church that they were mentioned by St. Ignatius who was contemporary with the latter times of the Apostles We may well believe that set and described forms of Liturgy were as early as the days of the Apostles and continued in the continuation of those and the like offices in all descending ages Of the same design and intimation were those known offices in the Greek Church of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Socrates speaks of as of an office in the Church of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Their office was the same with the Reader they did ex praescripto praeire ad verbum referre the same which ab Alexandro notes to have been done in the religious rites of Heathen Greece The first read out of a Book the appointed prayers and the others rehearsed them after Now it is unimaginable that constant officers should be appointed to say an office and no publick office be described Sect. 95. I SHALL add but this one thing more and pass on ad alia And that is that I never yet saw any instance example or pretence of precedent of any Bishop Priest or Lay person that ever prayed ex tempore in the Church and although in some places single Bishops or peradventure other persons of less Authority did oftentimes bring prayers of their own into the Church yet ever they were compositions and premeditations and were brought thither there to be repeated often and added to the Liturgy and although the Liturgies while they were less full than since they have been were apt to receive the additions of pious and excellent Persons yet the inconvenience grew so great by permitting any forms but what were approved by a publick Spirit that the Church as She always had forms of publick Prescription so She resolved to permit no mixture of any thing but what was warranted by an equal power that the Spirits of the Prophets might be subject to the Prophets and such Spirits when they are once tried whether they be of God or no tryed by a lawful superiour and a competent Judge may then venture into the open air And it were a strange imprudence choosingly to entertain those inconveniences which our wiser Fore-fathers felt and declar'd and remedied For why should we be in love with that evil against which they so carefully arm'd their Churches by the provision and defence of Laws For this produc'd that Canon of the Councel of Mileuis in Africa Placuit ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio ab omnibus celebrentur nec aliae omnino dicantur in Ecclesiâ nisi quae à prudentioribus factae fuerint in Synodo That 's the restraint and prohibition publick Prayers must be such as are publickly appointed and prescribed by our superiors and no private forms of our conceiving must be used in the Church The reason follows Ne fortè aliquid contra fidem vel per ignorantiam vel per minus studium sit compositum lest through ignorance or want of deliberation any thing be spoken in our prayers against faith and good manners Their reason is good and they are witnesses of it who hear the variety of Prayers before and after Sermons there where the Directory is practised where to speak most modestly not only their private opinions but also humane interests and their own personal concernments and wild fancies born perhaps not two daies before are made the objects of the peoples hopes of their desires and their prayers and all in the mean time pretend to the holy Spirit Sect. 96. THUS far we are gone The Church hath 1 power and authority and 2 command 3 and ability or promise of assistances to make publick forms of Liturgy and 4 the Church always did so in all descents from Moses to Christ from Christ to the Apostles from them all to all descending Ages for I have instanced till St. Austin's time and since there is no Question the people were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Balsamon sayes of those of the Greek Communion they used unalterable forms of Prayers described out of the Books of publick Liturgy it remains only that I consider upon what reason and grounds of prudence and religion the Church did so and whether she did well or no In order to which I consider Sect. 97. FIRST Every man hath personal needs of his own and he that understands his own condition and hath studied the state of his Soul in order to eternity his temporal estate in order to justice and charity and the constitution and necessities of his body in order to health and his health in order to the service of God as every wise and good man does will find that no man can make such provision for his necessities as he can do for his own caeteris paribus no man knows the things of a man but the spirit of the man and therefore if he have proportionable abilities it is allowed to him and it is necessary for him to represent his own conditions to God and he can best express his own sence or at least best sigh forth his own meaning and if he be a good
expolit dicendi necessitas secundos impetus auget placendi cupido Adeò praemium omnia spectant ut eloquentia quoque quanquam plurimum habeat in se voluptatis maximè tamen praesenti fructu laudis opinionisque ducatur It may so happen that the opinion of the people as it is apt to actuate the faculty so also may encourage the practice and spoil the devotion But these things are accidental to the nature of the thing and therefore though they are too certainly consequent to the person yet I will not be too severe but preserve my self on the surer side of a charitable construction which truly I desire to keep not only to their persons whom I much reverence but also to their actions But yet I durst not do the same thing even for these last reasons though I had no other Sect. 115. IN the next place we must consider the next great objection that is with much clamor pretended viz. that in set Forms of Prayer we restrain and confine the blessed Spirit and in conceived Forms when every man is left to his liberty then the Spirit is free unlimited and unconstrained Sect. 116. I ANSWER Either their conceived forms I use their own words though indeed the expression is very inartificial are premeditate and described or they are ex tempore If they be premeditate and described then the Spirit is as much limited in their conceived forms as in the Churches conceived Forms For as to this particular it is all one who describes and limits the Form whether the Church or a single man does it still the Spirit is in constraint and limit So that in this case they are not angry at set Forms of Prayer but that they do not make them And if it be replyed that if a single person composes a set Form he may alter it if he please and so his Spirit is at liberty I answer so may the Church if She see cause for it and unless there be cause the single person will not alter it unless he do things unreasonable and without cause So that it will be an unequal challenge and a peevish quarrel to allow of set Forms of Prayer made by private Persons and not of set Forms made by the publick spirit of the Church It is evident that the Spirit is limited in both alike Sect. 117. BUT if by conceived Forms in this Objection they mean ex tempore Prayers for so they would be thought most generally to practise it and that in the use of these the liberty of the spirit is best preserved To this I answer that the being ex tempore or premediate will be wholly impertinent to this Question of limiting the spirit For there may be great liberty in set forms even when there is much variety and there may be great restraint in ex tempore Prayers even then when it shall be called unlawful to use set forms That the spirit is restrained or that it is free in either is accidental to them both for it may be either free or not free in both as it may happen Sect. 118. BUT the restraint is this that every one is not left to his liberty to pray how he list with premeditation or without it makes not much matter but that he is prescribed unto by the spirit of another But if it be a fault thus to restrain the Spirit I would fain know is not the Spirit restrained when the whole Congregation shall be confined to the form of this one mans composing Or shall it be unlawful or at least a disgrace and disparagement to use any set Forms especially of the Churches composition More plainly thus Sect. 119. SECONDLY Doth not the Minister confine and restrain the spirit of the Lords People when they are tied to his Form It would sound of more liberty to their spirits that every one might make a prayer of his own and all pray together and not be forced or confined to the Ministers single dictate and private spirit It is true it would breed confusions and therefore they might pray silently till the Sermon began and not for the avoiding one inconvenience run into a greater and to avoid the disorder of a popular noise restrain the blessed Spirit for even in this case as well as in the other where the Spirit of God is there must be liberty Sect. 120. THIRDLY If the spirit must be at liberty who shall assure us this liberty must be in Forms of Prayer And if so whether also it must be in publick Prayer and will it not suffice that it be in private and if in publick Prayers is not the liberty of the spirit sufficiently preserved that the publick Spirit is free That is the Church hath power upon occasion to alter and increase her Litanies By what argument shall any man make it so much as probable that the Holy Ghost is injured if every private Ministers private spirit shall be guided and therefore by necessary consequence limited by the authority of the Churches publick Spirit Sect. 121. FOURTHLY Does not the Directory that thing which is here called restraining of the Spirit Does it not appoint every thing but the words And after this is it not a goodly Palladium that is contended for and a princely liberty they leave unto the Spirit to be free only in the supplying the place of a Vocabulary and a Copia verborum For as for the matter it is all there described and appointed and to those determined sences the Spirit must assist or not at all only for the words he shall take his choice Now I desire it may be considered sadly and seriously Is it not as much injury to the Spirit to restrain his matter as to appoint his words Which is the more considerable of the two Sence or Language Matter or Words I mean when they are taken singly and separately For so they may very well be for as if men prescribe the matter only the Spirit may cover it with several words and expressions so if the Spirit prescribe the words I may still abound in variety of sence and preserve the liberty of my meaning we see that true in the various interpretations of the same words of Scripture So that in the greater of the two the Spirit is restrained when his matter is appointed and to make him amends for not trusting him with the matter without our directions and limitations we trust him to say what he pleases so it be to our sence to our purposes A goodly compensation surely Sect. 122. FIFTHLY Did not Christ restrain the spirit of his Apostles when he taught them to pray the Lords Prayer whether his precept to his Disciples concerning it was Pray this or Pray thus Pray these words or Pray after this manner Or though it had been less than either and been only a Directory for the matter still it is a thing which our brethren in all other cases of the same nature are resolved perpetually to call a
be changed or else time must stand still and things be ever in the same state and possibility Both the Consequents are extremely full of inconvenience For if it be left to humane prudence then either the government of the Church is not in immediate order to the good and benison of souls or if it be that such an institution in such immediate order to eternity should be dependant upon humane prudence it were to trust such a rich commodity in a cock-boat that no wise Pilot will be supposed to do But if there be often changes in government Ecclesiastical which was the other consequent in the publick frame I mean and constitution of it either the certain infinity of Schisms will arise or the dangerous issues of publick inconsistence and innovation which in matters of Religion is good for nothing but to make men distrust all and come the best that can come there will be so many Church-Governments as there are humane Prudences For so if I be not mis-informed it is abroad in some Towns that have discharged Episcopacy As Saint Galles in Switzerland there the Ministers and Lay-men rule in Common but a Lay-man is President But the Consistories of Zurick and Basil are wholly consistent of Lay-men and Ministers are joyned as Assistants only and Counsellors but at Schaff-hausen the Ministers are not admitted to so much but in the Huguenot Churches of France the Ministers do all 3. In such cases where there is no power of the sword for a compulsory and confessedly of all sides there can be none in Causes and Courts Ecclesiastical if there be no opinion of Religion no derivation from a Divine authority there will be sure to be no obedience and indeed nothing but a certain publick calamitous irregularity For why should they obey Not for Conscience for there is no derivation from Divine authority Not for fear for they have not the power of the sword 4. If there be such a thing as the power of the Keys by Christ concredited to his Church for the binding and losing Delinquents and Penitents respectively on earth then there is clearly a Court erected by Christ in his Church for here is the delegation of Judges Tu Petrus vos Apostoli whatsoever ye shall bind Here is a compulsory ligaveritis Here are the causes of which they take cognizance quodcunque viz. in materiâ scandali For so it is limited Matth. 18. but it is indefinite Matth. 16. and Universal John 20. which yet is to be understood secundùm materiam subjectam in causes which are emergent from Christianity ut sic that secular jurisdictions may not be intrenched upon But of this hereafter That Christ did in this place erect a Jurisdiction and establish a government besides the evidence of fact is generally asserted by primitive exposition of the Fathers affirming that to Saint Peter the Keys were given that to the Church of all ages a power of binding and loosing might be communicated Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae ut quae solveret in terrâ soluta essent in coelo scil ut quisquis in Ecclesia ejus dimitti sibi peccata crederet seque ab iis correctus averteret in ejusdem Ecclesiae gremio constitutus eâdem fide atque correctione sanaretur So S. Austin And again Omnibus igitur sanctis ad Christi corpus inseparabiliter pertinentibus propter hujus vitae procellosissima gubernaculum ad liganda solvenda peccata claves regni coelorum primus Apostolorum Petrus accepit Quoniam nec ille solus sed universa Ecclesia ligat solvitque peccata Saint Peter first received the government in the power of binding and loosing But not he alone but all the Church to wit all succession and ages of the Church Vniversa Ecclesia viz. in Pastoribus solis as Saint Chrysostom In Episcopis Presbyteris as S. Hierome The whole Church as it is represented in the Bishops and Presbyters The same is affirmed by Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Chrysostom S. Hilary Primasius and generally by the Fathers of the elder and Divines of the middle ages 5. When our blessed Saviour had spoken a parable of the sudden coming of the Son of Man and commanded them therefore with diligence to stand upon their watch the Disciples asked him Speakest thou this parable to us or even to all And the Lord said Who then is that faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season As if he had said I speak to You for to whom else should I speak and give caution for the looking to the house in the Masters absence You are by office and designation my stewards to feed my servants to govern my house 6. In Scripture and other Writers to Feed and to Govern is all one when the office is either Political or Oeconomical or Ecclesiastical So he Fed them with a faithful and true heart and Ruled them prudently with all his power And Saint Peter joyns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So does Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers or Overseers in a Flock Pastors It is ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homer i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euripides calls the Governours and Guides of Chariots 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And our blessed Saviour himself is called the Great Shepherd of our souls and that we may know the intentum of that compellation it is in conjunction also with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is therefore our Shepherd for he is our Bishop our Ruler and Overseer Since then Christ hath left Pastors or Feeders in his Church it is also as certain he hath left Rulers they being both one in name in person in office But this is of a known truth to all that understand either Laws or Languages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Philo they that feed have the power of Princes and Rulers the thing is an undoubted truth to most men but because all are not of a mind something was necessary for confirmation of it SECT II. This Government was first committed to the Apostles by Christ. THIS Government was by immediate substitution delegated to the Apostles by Christ himself in traditione clavium in spiratione Spiritûs in missione in Pentecoste When Christ promised them the Keys he promised them power to bind and loose when he breathed on them the Holy Ghost he gave them that actually to which by the former promise they were intitled and in the Octaves of the Passion he gave them the same authority which he had received from his Father and they were the faithful and wise stewards whom the Lord made Rulers over his Houshold But I shall not labour much upon this Their founding all the Churches from East to West and so by being Fathers derived their authority from the nature of the
office above Presbyters for in Scripture they could never do it and this is it which we call Episcopacy SECT IX And Superiority of Jurisdiction THIRDLY The Apostles were Rulers of the whole Church and each Apostle respectively of his several Diocess when he would fix his Chair and had superintendency over the Presbyters and the people and this by Christ's donation the Charter is by the Fathers said to be this Sicut misit me Pater sicâ— ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me even so send I you Manifesta enim est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à Patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes said Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop in the Council of Carthage related by S. Cyprian and S. Austin But however it is evident in Scripture that the Apostles had such superintendency over the inferior Clergy Presbyters I mean and Deacons and a superiority of jurisdiction and therefore it is certain that Christ gave it them for none of the Apostles took this honour but he that was called of God as was Aaron 1. Our blessed Saviour gave to the Apostles plenitudinem potestatis It was sicut misit me Pater c. As my Father sent so I send You my Apostles whom I have chosen This was not said to Presbyters for they had no commission at all given to them by Christ but at their first mission to preach repentance I say no commission at all they were not spoken to they were not present Now then consider Suppose that as Aerius did deny the Divine institution of Bishops over the Presbyters cum grege another as confident as he should deny the Divine institution of Presbyters what proof were there in all the holy Scripture to shew the Divine institution of them as a distinct Order from Apostles or Bishops Indeed Christ selected 72. and gave them commission to preach but that commission was temporary and expired before the crucifixion for ought appears in Scripture If it be said the Apostles did ordain Presbyters in every City it is true but not sufficient for so they ordained Deacons at Jerusalem and in all established Churches and yet this will not tant'amount to an immediate Divine institution for Deacons and how can it then for Presbyters If we say a constant Catholick traditive interpretation of Scripture does teach us that Christ did institute the Presbyterate together with Episcopacy and made the Apostles Presbyters as well as Bishops this is true But then 1. We recede from the plain words of Scripture and rely upon tradition which in this Question of Episcopacy will be of dangerous consequence to the enemies of it for the same tradition if that be admitted for good probation is for Episcopal preheminence over Presbyters as will appear in the sequel 2. Though no use be made of this advantage yet to the allegation it will be quickly answered that it can never be proved from Scripture that Christ made the Apostles Priests first and then Bishops or Apostles but only that Christ gave them several commissions and parts of the Office Apostolical all which being in one person cannot by force of Scripture prove two Orders Truth is if we change the scene of war and say that the Presbyterate as a distinct Order from the ordinary Office of Apostleship is not of Divine institution the proof of it would be harder than for the Divine institution of Episcopacy Especially if we consider that in all the enumerations of the parts of Clerical Offices there is no enumeration of Presbyters but of Apostles there is and the other Members of the induction are of gifts of Christianity or parts of the Apostolate and either must infer many more Orders than the Church ever yet admitted of or none distinct from the Apostolate insomuch as Apostles were Pastors and Teachers and Evangelists and Rulers and had the gift of Tongues of Healing and of Miracles This thing is of great consideration and this use I will make of it That either Christ made the 72. to be Presbyters and in them instituted the distinct Order of Presbyterate as the ancient Church alwayes did believe or else he gave no distinct commission for any such distinct Order If the second be admitted then the Presbyterate is not of immediate divine institution but of Apostolical only as is the Order of Deacons and the whole plenitude of power is in the Order Apostolical alone and the Apostles did constitute Presbyters with a greater portion of their own power as they did Deacons with a less But if the first be said then the commission to the 72. Presbyters being only of preaching that we find in Scripture all the rest of their power which now they have is by Apostolical ordinance and then although the Apostles did admit them in partem sollicitudinis yet they did not admit them in plenitudinem potestatis for then they must have made them Apostles and then there will be no distinction of order neither by Divine nor Apostolical institution neither I care not which part be chosen one is certain but if either of them be true then since to the Apostles only Christ gave a plenitude of power it follows that either the Presbyters have no power of jurisdiction as affixed to a distinct order and then the Apostles are to rule them by vertue of the order and ordinary commission Apostolical or if they have jurisdiction they do derive it à foâ—te Apostolorum and then the Apostles have superiority of jurisdiction over Presbyters because Presbyters only have it by delegation Apostolical And that I say truth besides that there is no possibility of shewing the contrary in Scripture by the producing any other commission given to Presbyters then what I have specified I will hereafter shew it to have been the faith and practice of Christendom not only that Presbyters were actually subordinate to Bishops which I contend to be the ordinary office of Apostleship but that Presbyteâ—s have no Jurisdiction essential to their order but derivative only from Apostolical preheminence 2. Let us now see the matter of fact They that can inflict censures upon Presbyters have certainly superiority of Jurisdiction over Presbyters for Aequalis aequalem coercere non potest saith the Law Now it is evident in the case of Diotrephes a Presbyter and a Bishop Would be that for his peremptory rejection of some faithful people from the Catholick Communion without cause and without authority Saint John the Apostle threatned him in his Epistle to Gaius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Wherefore when I come I will remember him and all that would have been to very little purpose if he had not had coercive jurisdiction to have punisht his delinquency 3. Presbyters many of them did succeed the Apostles by a new Ordination as Matthias succeeded Judas who before his new ordination was
one of the 72. as Eusebius Epiphanius and S. Jerom affirm and in Scripture is expressed to be of the number of them that went in and out with Jesus S. Clement succeeded S. Peter at Rome S. Simeon Cleophae succeeded S. James at Jerusalem S. Philip succeeded S. Paul at Caesarea and divers others of the 72. reckoned by Dorotheus Eusebius and others of the Fathers did govern the several Churches after the Apostles death which before they did not Now it is clear that he that receives no more power after the Apostles than he had under them can no way be said to succeed them in their Charge or Churches It follows then since as will more fully appear anon Presbyters did succeed the Apostles that under the Apostles they had not such jurisdiction as afterwards they had But the Apostles had the same to which the Presbyters succeeded to therefore greater than the Presbyters had before they did succeed When I say Presbyters succeeded the Apostles I mean not as Presbyters but by a new ordination to the dignity of Bishops so they succeeded and so they prove an evidence of fact for a superiority of Jurisdiction in the Apostolical Clergy *** Now that this superiority of Jurisdiction was not temporary but to be succeeded in appears from Reason and from ocular demonstration or of the thing done 1. If superiority of Jurisdiction was necessary in the ages Apostolical for the Regiment of the Church there is no imaginable reason why it should not be necessary in succession since upon the emergency of Schisms and Heresies which were foretold should multiply in descending ages government and superiority of jurisdiction unity of supremacy and coercion was more necessary than at first when extraordinary gifts might supply what now we expect to be performed by an ordinary Authority 2. Whatsoever was the Regiment of the Church in the Apostles times that must be perpetual not so as to have all that which was personal and temporary but so as to have no other for that and that only is of Divine institution which Christ committed to the Apostles and if the Church be not now governed as then We can shew no Divine authority for our government which we must contend to do and do it too or be call'd usurpers For either the Apostles did govern the Church as Christ commanded them or not If not then they failed in the founding of the Church and the Church is built upon a Rock If they did as most certainly they did then either the same disparity of jurisdiction must be retained or else we must be governed with an unlawful and unwarranted equality because not by that which only is of immediate Divine institution and then it must needs be a fine government where there is no authority and where no man is superiour 3. We see a disparity in the Regiment of Churches warranted by Christ himself and confirmed by the Holy Ghost in fairest intimation I mean the seven Angel-presidents of the seven Asian Churches If these seven Angels were seven Bishops that is Prelates or Governours of these seven Churches in which it is evident and confessed of all sides there were many Presbyters then it is certain that a Superiority of Jurisdiction was intended by Christ himself and given by him insomuch as he is the fountain of all power derived to the Church For Christ writes to these seven Churches and directs his Epistles to the seven Governours of these Churches calling them Angels which it will hardly be supposed he would have done if the function had not been a ray of the Sun of righteousness they had not else been Angels of light nor stars held in Christs own right hand This is certain that the function of these Angels whatsoever it be is a Divine institution Let us then see what is meant by these Stars and Angels The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches 1. Then it is evident that although the Epistles were sent with a final intention for the edification and confirmation of the whole Churches or people of the Diocess with an Attendite quid Spiritus dicit Ecclesiis yet the personal direction was not to the whole Church for the whole Church is called the Candlestick and the superscription of the Epistles is not to the seven Candlesticks but to the seven Stars which are the Angels of the seven Churches viz. The lights shining in the Candlesticks By the Angel therefore is not cannot be meant the whole Church 2. It is plain that by the Angel is meant the Governour of the Church First Because of the title of eminency The Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Messenger the Legate the Apostle of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For these words Angel or Apostle although they signifie Mission or Legation yet in Scripture they often relate to the persons to whom they are sent As in the examples before specified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Their Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles of the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Angel of the Church of Ephesus and divers others Their compellation therefore being a word of office in respect of him that sends them and of eminence in relation to them to whom they are sent shews that the Angel was the Ruler of each Church respectively 2. Because acts of jurisdiction are concredited to him as not to suffer false Apostles So to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus which is clearly a power of cognizance and coercion in causis Clericorum to be watchful and strengthen the things that remain as to the Angel of the Church in Sardis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first is the office of Rulers for they watch for your Souls And the second of Apostles and Apostolick men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judas and Silas confirmed the Brethren for these men although they were but of the LXXII at first yet by this time were made Apostles and chief men among the Brethren S. Paul also was joyned in this work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He Went up and down confirming the Churches And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Paul To confirm the Churches and to make supply of what is deficient in discipline and government these were offices of power and jurisdiction no less than Episcopal or Apostolical and besides the Angel here spoken of had a propriety in the people of the Diocess Thou hast a few names even in Sardis they were the Bishops people the Angel had a right to them And good reason that the people should be his for their faults are attributed to him as to the Angel of Pergamus and divers others and therefore they are deposited in his custody He is to be their Ruler and Pastor and this is called His Ministery To the Angel of the Church of Thyatira 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have known thy Ministery His office therefore was clerical it
was an Angel-Minister and this his office must make him the guide and superiour to the Rest even all the whole Church since he was charged with all 3. By the Angel is meant a singular person for the reprehensions and the commendations respectively imply personal delinquency or suppose personal excellencies Add to this that the compellation is singular and of determinate number so that we may as well multiply Churches as persons for the seven Churches had but seven stars and these seven stars were the Angels of the seven Churches And if by seven stars they may mean 70 times seven stars for so they may if they begin to multiply then by one star they must mean many stars and so they may multiply Churches too for there were as many Churches as stars and no more Angels than Churches and it is as reasonable to multiply these seven Churches into 7000 as every star into a Constellation or every Angel into a Legion But besides the exigency of the thing it self these seven Angels are by Antiquity called the seven Governours or Bishops of the seven Churches and their names are commemorated Unto these seven Churches S. Iohn saith Arethas reckoneth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an equal number of Angel-Governours and Oecumenius in his Scholia upon this place saith the very same words Septem igitur Angelos Rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere eò quòd Angelus nuntius interpretatur saith S. Ambrose and again Angelos Episcopos dicit sicut docetur in Apocalypsi Iohannis Let the woman have a covering on her head because of the Angels that is in reverence and in subjection to the Bishop of the Church for Bishops are the Angels as is taught in the Revelation of S. Iohn Divinâ voce sub Angeli Nomine laudatur praepositus Ecclesiae so S. Austin By the voice of God the Bishop of the Church is commended under the title of an Angel Eusebius names some of these Angels who were then Presidents and actually Bishops of these Churches S. Polycarpe was one to be sure apud Smyrnam Episcopus Martyr saith Eusebius He was the Angel of the Church of Smyrna And he had good authority for it for he reports it out of Polycrates who a little after was himself an Angel of the Church of Ephesus and he also quotes S. Irenaeus for it and out of the Encyclical Epistle of the Church of Smyrna it self and besides these authorities it is attested by S. Ignatius and Tertullian S. Timothy was another Angel to wit of the Church of Ephesus to be sure had been and most likely was still surviving Antipas is reckoned by Name in the Revelation and he had been the Angel of Pergamus but before this book was written he was turned from an Angel to a Saint Melito in all probability was then the Angel of the Church of Sardis Melito quoque Sardensis Ecclesiae Antistes Apollinaris apud Hierapolim Ecclesiam regens celeberrimi inter caeteros habebantur saith Eusebius These men were actually living when S. Iohn writ his Revelation for Melito writ his book de Paschate when Sergius Paulus was Proconsul of Asia and writ after the Revelation for he writ a Treatise of it as saith Eusebius However at least some of these were then and all of these about that time were Bishops of these Churches and the Angels S. John speaks of were such who had jurisdiction over their whole Diocess therefore these or such as these were the Angels to whom the Spirit of God writ hortatory and commendatory letters such whom Christ held in his Right hand and fixed them in the Churches like lights set on a candlestick that they might give shine to the whole house The Summe of all is this that Christ did institute Apostles and Presbyters or 72 Disciples To the Apostles he gave a plenitude of power for the whole commission was given to them in as great and comprehensive clauses as were imaginable for by vertue of it they received a power of giving the Holy Ghost in confirmation and of giving his grace in the collation of holy Orders a power of jurisdiction and authority to govern the Church and this power was not temporary but successive and perpetual and was intended as any ordinary office in the Church so that the successors of the Apostles had the same right and institution that the Apostles themselves had and though the personal mission was not immediate as of the Apostles it was yet the commission and institution of the function was all one But to the 72 Christ gave no commission but of preaching which was a very limited commission There was all the immediate Divine institution of Presbyterate as a distinct order that can be fairly pretended But yet farther these 72 the Apostles did admit in partem solicitudinis and by new ordination or delegation Apostolical did give them power of administring Sacraments of Absolving sinners of governing the Church in conjunction and subordination to the Apostles of which they had a capacity by Christs calling them at first in sortem ministerii but the exercise and the actuating of this capacity they had from the Apostles So that not by Divine ordination or immediate commission from Christ but by derivation from the Apostles and therefore in minority and subordination to them the Presbyters did exercise acts of order and jurisdiction in the absence of the Apostles or Bishops or in conjunction consiliary and by way of advice or before the consecration of a Bishop to a particular Church And all this I doubt not but was done by the direction of the Holy Ghost as were all other acts of Apostolical ministration and particularly the institution of the other order viz. of Deacons This is all that can be proved out of Scripture concerning the commission given in the institution of Presbyters and this I shall afterwards confirm by the practice of the Catholick Church and so vindicate the practises of the present Church from the common prejudices that disturb us for by this account Episcopacy is not only a Divine institution but the only order that derives immediately from Christ. For the present only I summe up this with that saying of Theodoret speaking of the 72 Disciples Palmae sunt isti qui nutriuntur ac erudiuntur ab Apostolis Nam quanquam Christus hos etiam elegit erant tamen duodecim illis inferiores postea illorum Discipuli sectatores The Apostles are the twelve fountains and the LXXII are the palms that are nourished by the waters of those fountains For though Christ also ordained the LXXII yet they were inferior to the Apostles and afterwards were their followers and Disciples I know no objection to hinder a conclusion only two or three words out of Ignatius are pretended against the main question viz. to prove that he although a Bishop yet had no Apostolical authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not
command this as an Apostle for what am I and what is my Fathers house that I should compare my self with them but as your fellow souldier and a Monitor But this answers it self if we consider to whom he speaks it Not to his own Church of Antioch for there he might command as an Apostle but to the Philadelphians he might not they were no part of his Diocess he was not their Apostle and then because he did not equal the Apostles in their commission extraordinary in their personal priviledges and in their universal jurisdiction therefore he might not command the Philadelphians being another Bishops charge but admonish them with the freedom of a Christian Bishop to whom the souls of all faithful people were dear and precious So that still Episcopacy and Apostolate may be all one in ordinary office this hinders not and I know nothing else pretended and that antiquity is clearly on this side is the next business For hitherto the discourse hath been of the immediate Divine institution of Episcopacy by arguments derived from Scripture I shall only add two more from Antiquity and so pass on to tradition Apostolical SECT X. So that Bishops are successors in the office of Apostleship according to the general Tenent of Antiquity 1. THE belief of the Primitive Church is that Bishops are the ordinary successors of the Apostles and Presbyters of the LXXII and therefore did believe that Episcopacy is as truly of Divine institution as the Apostolate for the ordinary office both of one and the other is the same thing For this there is abundant testimony Some I shall select enough to give fair evidence of a Catholick tradition S. Irenaeus is very frequent and confident in this particular Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos Etenim si recondita mysteria scîssent Apostoli his vel maxime traderent ea quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant quos successores relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes We can name the men the Apostles made Bishops in their several Churches appointing them their successors and most certainly those mysterious secrets of Christianity which themselves knew they would deliver to them to whom they committed the Churches and left to be their successors in the same power and authority themselves had Tertullian reckons Corinth Philippi Thessalonica Ephesus and others to be Churches Apostolical apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident Apostolical they are from their foundation and by their succession for the Apostles did found them and Apostles or men of Apostolick authority still do govern them S. Cyprian Hoc enim vel maximè Frater laboramus laborare debemus ut Vnitatem à Domino per Apostolos Nobis Successoribus traditam quantùm possumus obtinere curemus We must preserve the Vnity commanded us by Christ and delivered by his Apostles to us their Successors To us Cyprian and Cornelius for they only were then in view the one Bishop of Rome the other of Carthage And in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum Nec haec jacto sed dolens profero cum te Judicem Dei constituas Christi Qui dicit ad Apostolos ac per hoc ad omnes praepositos qui Apostolis Vicariâ ordinatione succedunt qui vos audit me audit c. Christ said to his Apostles and in them to the Governours or Bishops of his Church who succeeded the Apostles as Vicars in their absence He that heareth you heareth me Famous is that saying of Clarus à Musculâ the Bishop spoken in the Council of Carthage and repeated by S. Austin Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi Apostolos suos mittentis ipsis solis potestatem à patre sibi datam permittentis quibus nos successimus eâdem potestate Ecclesiam Domini gubernantes Nos successimus We succeed the Apostles governing the Church by the same power He spake it in full Council in an assembly of Bishops and himself was a Bishop The Council of Rome under S. Sylvester speaking of the honour due to Bishops expresses it thus Non oportere quemquam Domini Discipulis id est Apostolorum successoribus detrahere No man must detract from the Disciples of our Lord that is from the Apostles successors S. Hierome speaking against the Montanists for undervaluing their Bishops shews the difference of the Catholicks honouring and the Hereticks disadvantaging that sacred order Apud nos saith he Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent apud eos Episcopus tertius est Bishops with us Catholicks have the place or authority of Apostles but with them Montanists Bishops are not the first but the third state of Men. And upon that of the Psalmist pro Patribus nati sunt tibi filii S. Hierome and divers others of the Fathers make this gloss Pro Patribus Apostolis filii Episcopi ut Episcopi Apostolis tanquam filii Patribus succedant The Apostles are Fathers instead of whom Bishops do succeed whom God hath appointed to be made Rulers in all lands So S. Hierome S. Austin and Euthymius upon the 44 Psalm alià s 45. But S. Austin for his own particular makes good use of his succeeding the Apostles which would do very well now also to be considered Si solis Apostolis dixit qui vos spernit me spernit spernite nos si autem sermo ejus pervenit ad nos vocavit nos in eorum loco constituit nos videte ne spernatis nos It was good counsel not to despise Bâ—shops for they being in the Apostles places and offices are concerned and protectâ—d by that saying He that despiseth you despiseth me I said it was good counsel especially if besides all these we will take also S. Chrysostomes testimony Potestas anathematizandi ab Apostâ—lis ad successores eorum nimirum Episcopos transit A power of anathematizing delinquents is derived from the Apostles to their successors even to Bishops S. Ambrose upon that of S. Paul Ephes. 4. Quosdam dedit Apostolos Apostoli Episcopi sunt He hath given Apostles that is he hath given some Bishops That 's downright and this came not by chance from him he doubles his assertion Caput itaque in Ecclesiâ Apostolis posuit qui legati Christi sunt sicut dicit idem Apostolus pro quo legatione fungimur Ipsi sunt Episcopi firmante istud Petro Apostolo dicente inter caetera de Judâ Episcopatum ejus accipiat alter And a third time Numquid omnes Apostoli verum est Quia in Ecclesiâ Vnus est Episcopus Bishop and Apostle was all one with S. Ambrose when he spake of their ordinary offices which puts me in mind of the fragment of Polycrates of the Martyrdom of Timothy in Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy was ordained Bishop in the Metropolis
clearly make not distinct orders and why are not all of them of the same consideration I would be answered from grounds of Scripture For there we fix as yet * Indeed the Apostles did ordain such men and scattered their power at first for there was so much imployment in any one of them as to require one man for one office but a while after they united all the lesser parts of power into two sorts of men whom the Church hath since distinguished by the Names of Presbyters and Deacons and called them two distinct orders But yet if we speak properly and according to the Exigence of Divine institution there is Vnum Sacerdotium one Priesthood appointed by Christ and that was the commission given by Christ to his Apostles and to their successors precisely and those other offices of Presbyter and Deacon are but members of the Great Priesthood and although the power of it is all of Divine institution as the power to Baptize to Preach to Consecrate to Absolve to Minister yet that so much of it should be given to one sort of men so much less to another that is only of Apostolical ordinance For the Apostles might have given to some only a power to Absolve to some only to Consecrate to some only to Baptize We see that to Deacons they did so They had only a power to Baptize and Preach whether all Evangelists had so much or no Scripture doth not tell us * But if to some men they had only given a power to use the Keys or made them officers spiritual to restore such as are overtaken in a fault and not to consecrate the Eucharist for we see these powers are distinct and not relative and of necessarie conjunction no more than Baptizing and Consecrating whether or no had those men who have only a power of Absolving or Consecrating respectively whether I say have they the order of a Presbyter If yea then now every Priest hath two orders besides the order of Deacon for by the power of Consecration he hath the power of a Presbyter and what is he then by his other power But if such a man ordained with but one of these powers have not the order of a Presbyter then let any man shew me where it is ordained by Christ or indeed by the Apostles that an order of Clerks should be constituted with both these powers and that these were called Presbyters I only leave this to be considered * But all the Apostolical power we find instituted by Christ and we also find a necessitie that all that power should be succeeded in and that all that power should be united in one order for he that hath the highest viz. a power of Ordination must needs have all the other else he cannot give them to any else but a power of Ordination I have proved to be necessary and perpetual So that we have clear evidence of the Divine institution of the perpetual order of Apostleship mary for the Presbyterate I have not so much either reason or confidence for it as now it is in the Church but for the Apostolate it is beyond exception And to this Bishops do succeed For that it is so I have proved from Scripture and because no Scripture is of private interpretation I have attested it with the Catholick testimony of the Primitive Fathers calling Episcopacie the Apostolate and Bishops successors of S. Peter in particular and of all the Apostles in general in their ordinarie offices in which they were Superiour to the LXXII the Antecessors of the Presbyterate One objection I must clear For sometimes Presbyters are also called Apostles and Successors of the Apostles as in Ignatius in Irenaeus in S. Hierome I answer 1. They are not called Successores Apostolorum by any dogmatical resolution or interpretation of Scripture as the Bishops are in the examples above alledged but by allusion and participation at the most For true it is that they succeed the Apostles in the offices of Baptizing Consecrating and Absolving in privato foro but this is but part of the Apostolical power and no part of their office as Apostles were superiour to Presbyters 2. It is observable that Presbyters are never affirmed to succeed in the power and regiment of the Church but in subordination and derivation from the Bishop and therefore they are never said to succeed In Cathedris Apostolorum in the Apostolick Sees 3. The places which I have specified and they are all I could ever meet with are of peculiar answer For as for Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis he calls the Presbytery or company of Priests the Colledge or combination of Apostles But here S. Ignatius as he lifts up the Presbyters to a comparison with Apostles so he also raises the Bishop to the similitude and resemblance with God Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit Presbyteri verò sunt conjunctus Apostolorum coetus So that although Presbyters grow high yet they do not overtake the Bishops or Apostles who also in the same proportion grow higher than their first station This then will do no hurt As for S. Irenaeus he indeed does say that Presbyters succeed the Apostles but what Presbyters he means he tells us even such Presbyters as were also Bishops such as S. Peter and S. John were who call themselves Presbyters his words are these Proptereà eis qui in Ecclesiâ sunt Presbyteris obaudire oportet his qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatûs successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Patris acceperunt And a little after Tales Presbyteros nutrit Ecclesia de quibus Propheta ait Et dabo Principes tuos in pace Episcopos tuos in Justitiâ So that he gives testimony for us not against us As for S. Hierome the third man he in the succession to the honour of the Apostolate joyns Presbyters with Bishops and that 's right enough for if the Bishop alone does succeed in plenitudinem potestatis Apostolicae ordinariae as I have proved he does then also it is as true of the Bishop together with his consessus Presbyterorum Episcopi Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum those are his words and enforce not so much as may be safely granted for reddendo singula singulis Bishops succeed Apostles and Presbyters Apostolick men and such were many that had not at first any power Apostolical and that 's all that can be inferred from this place of S. Hierome I know nothing else to stay me or to hinder our assent to those authorities of Scripture I have alledged and the full voice of traditive interpretation SECT XII And the Institution of Episcopacy as well as the Apostolate expressed to be Divine by Primitive Authority THE second argument from Antiquity is the direct testimony of the Fathers for a Divine Institution In this S. Cyprian
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Peter and S. John although they were honoured of our Lord yet they would not themselves be but made James sirnamed the Just Bishop of Jerusalem and the reason is that which is given by Hegesippus in Eusebius for his successor Simeon Cleophae for when S. James was crowned with Martyrdom and immediately the City destroyed Traditur Apostolos qui supererant in commune consilium habuisse quem oportere dignum successione Jacobi judicari It was concluded for Simeon because he was the Kinsman of our Lord as S. James also his Predecessor The same concerning S. James is also repeated by Eusebius Judaei ergo cùm Paulus provocâsset ad Caesarem in Jacobum fratrem Domini cui ab Apostolis sedes Hierosolymitana delata fuit omnem suam malevolentiam convertunt In the Apostolical constitutions under the name of S. Clement the Apostles are brought in speaking thus De ordinatis autem à nobis Episcopis in vitâ nostrâ significamus vobis quòd hi sunt Hierosolymis ordinatus est Jacobus Frater Domini S. James the Brother of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by us Apostles The same is witnessed by Anacletus Porrò Hierosolymitarum primus Episcopus B. Jacobus qui Justus dicebatur secundum carnem Domini nuncupatus est frater à Petro Jacobo Johanne Apostolis est ordinatus And the same thing in terms is repeated by Anicetus with a Scimus enim Beatissimum Jacobum c. Just as Anacletus before S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and Peter James and Iohn were his Ordainers But let us see the testimony of one of S. Iames his Successors in the same Chair who certainly was the best witness of his own Church Records S. Cyrill of Jerusalem is the man Nam de his non mihi solum sed etiam Apostolis Jacobo hujus Ecclesiae olim Episcopo curae fuit speaking of the question of circumcision and things sacrificed to Idols and again he calls S. Iames primum hujus parochiae Episcopum the first Bishop of this Diocess S. Austin also attests this story Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae in quâ Petrus sedit in quâ hodiè Anastasius sedet Vel Ecclesiae Hierosolymitanae In qua Jacobus Sedit in quâ hodiè Iohannes sedet I must not omit the testimony of S. Ierome for it will be of great use in the sequel Iacobus saith he post passionem Domini statim ab Apostolis Hierosolymorum Episcopus ordinatus and the same also he repeats out of Hegesippus There are many more testimonies to this purpose as of S. Chrysostome Epiphanius S. Ambrose the Council of Constantinople in Trullo But Gregorius Turonensis rises a little higher Iacobus Frater Domini vocitatus ab ipso Domino nostro Iesu Christo Episcopus dicitur ordinatus S. James the Brother of our Lord is said to have been ordained Bishop by our Lord Iesus Christ himself If by Ordinatus he means designatus he agrees with S. Chrysostome But either of them both will serve the turn for the present But either in one sence or the other it is true and attested also by Epiphanius Et primus hic accepit Cathedram Episcopatûs cui concredidit Dominus thronum suum in terra primó S. James had first the Episcopal chair for our Lord first intrusted his earthly throne to him And thus we are incircled with a cloud of witnesses to all which if we add what I before observed that S. Iames is in Scripture called an Apostle and yet he was none of the twelve and that in the sence of Scripture and the Catholick Church a Bishop and an Apostle is all one it follows from the premisses and of them already there is faith enough made that S. Iames was by Christs own designation and ordination Apostolical made Bishop of the Church of Ierusalem that is had power Apostolical concredited to him which Presbyters had not and this Apostolate was limited and fixed as his Successors since have been But that this also was not a temporary business and to expire with the persons of S. Iames and the first Apostles but a regiment of ordinary and successive duty in the Church it appears by the ordination of S. Simeon the son of Cleophas to be his Successor It is witnessed by Eusebius Post martyrium Iacobi traditur Apostolos c. habuisse in commune Concilium quem oporteret dignum successione Iacobi judicari omnesque uno consilio atque uno consensu Simeonem Cleophae filium decrevisse ut Episcopatûs sedem susciperet The same also he transcribes out of Hegesippus posteaquam Iacobus Martyr effectus est electione divina Simeon Cleophae filius Episcopus ordinatur electus ab omnibus pro eo quòd esset consobrinus Domini S. Simeon was ordained Bishop by a divine election And Epiphanius in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Ierusalem reckons first Iames and next Simeon Qui sub Trajano crucifixus est SECT XIV S. Timothy at Ephesus THE next Bishop we find ordained by the Apostles was Timothy at Ephesus That he was ordain'd by an Apostle appears in Scripture For S. Paul imposed hands on him that 's certain Excita Gratiam quae in te est per impositionem manuum mearum By the laying on of my hands That he was there a Bishop is also apparent from the power and offices concredited to him First He was to be resident at Ephesus And although for the publick necessities of the Church and for assistance to S. Paul he might be called sometimes from his Charge yet there he lived and died as the Church story writes there was his ordinary residence and his avocations were but temporary and occasional And when it was his cure was supplied by Tychicus whom S. Paul sent to Ephesus as his Vicar as I shall shew hereafter 2. S. Paul in his Epistles to him gave directions to him for Episcopal deportment as is plain A Bishop must be blameless the husband of one wife c. Thirdly S. Paul concredits jurisdiction to S. Timothy Over the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of as great extent in S. Timothies commission as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Commanding as teaching Over Presbyters but yet so as to make difference between them and the Neotericks in Christianity the one as Fathers the other as Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is denied to be used towards either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Suidas a dishonourable upbraiding or objurgation Nay it is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is castigo plagam infero saith Budaeus so that that kind of Rebuking the Bishop is forbidden to use either toward Priest or Deacon Clergy or Laity Old or Young For a Bishop must be no striker But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that 's given him in commission both to old and young Presbyters and Catechumens that is Require them postula
sure at least If he had ordained only Presbyters it would have proved that But this infers him to be a Metropolitan forasmuch as he was Bishop of Crete and yet had many suffragans in subordination to him of his own constitution and yet of proper Diocesses However if this discourse concludes nothing peculiar it frees the place from popular prejudice and mistakes upon the confusion of Episcopus and Presbyter and at least infers his being a Bishop if not a great deal more Yea but did not S. Titus ordain no meer Presbyters yes most certainly But so he did Deacons too and yet neither one nor the other are otherwise mentioned in this Epistle but by consequence and comprehension within the superior order For he that ordains a Bishop first makes him a Deacon and then he obtains 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good degree and then a Presbyter and then a Bishop So that these inferior orders are presupposed in the authorizing the Supream and by giving direction for the qualifications of Bishops he sufficiently instructs the inferior orders in their deportment insomuch as they are probations for advancement to the higher 2. Add to this that he that ordains Bishops in Cities set there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordinem generativum Patrum as Epiphanius calls Episcopacy and therefore most certainly with intention not that it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manus Mortua but to produce others and therefore Presbyters and Deacons 3. S. Paul made no express provision for Villages and yet most certainly did not intend to leave them destitute and therefore he took order that such ordinations should be made in Cities which should be provisionary for Villages and that is of such men as had power to ordain and power to send Presbyters to what part of their charge they pleased For since Presbyters could not ordain other Presbyters as appears by S. Paul's sending Titus to do it there where most certainly many Presbyters before were actually resident if Presbyters had gone to Villages they must have left the Cities destitute or if they staid in Cities the Villages would have perished and at last when these men had died both one and the other had been made a prey to the wolf for there could be no shepherd after the decay of the first generation But let us see further into S. Titus his commission and letters of orders and institution A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Cognizance of Heretical pravity and animadversion against the Heretick himself is most plainly concredited to S. Titus For first he is to admonish him then to reject him upon his pertinacy from the Catholick communion Cogere autem illos videtur qui saepe corripit saith S. Ambrose upon the establishing a coactive or coercive jurisdiction over the Clergy and whole Diocess But I need not specifie any more particulars for S. Paul committed to S. Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all authority and power The consequence is that which S. Ambrose prefixes to the Commentary on his Epistle Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum ideò commonet eum ut sit solicitus in Ecclesiasticâ ordinatione id est ad quosdam qui simulatione quâdam dignos se ostentabant ut sublimem ordinem tenerent simulque haereticos ex circumcisione corripiendos And now after so fair preparatory of Scripture we may hear the testimonies of antiquity witnessing that Titus was by S. Paul made Bishop of Crete Sed Lucas saith Eusebius in actibus Apostolorum Timothei meminit Titi quorum alter in Epheso Episcopus alter ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis ab eo ordinatus praeficitur That is it which S. Ambrose expresses something more plainly Titum Apostolus consecravit Episcopum The Apostle consecrated Titus Bishop and Theodoret calling Titus Cretensium Episcopum The Bishop of the Cretians And for this reason saith S. Paul did not write to Sylvanus or Silas or Clemens but to Timothy and Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because to these he had already committed the government of Churches But a fuller testimony of S. Titus being a Bishop who please may see in S. Hierome in Dorotheus in Isidore in Vincentius in Theodoret in S. Gregory in Primasius in Sedulius Theophylact and Nicephorus To Which if we add the subscription of the Epistle asserted from all impertinent objections by the clearer testimony of S. Athanasius S. Jerome the Syriack translation Oecumenius and Theophylact no confident denial can ever break through or scape conviction And now I know not what objection can fairly be made here for I hope S. Titus was no Evangelist he is not called so in Scripture and all Antiquity calls him a Bishop and the nature of his offices the eminence of his dignity the superiority of jurisdiction the cognizance of causes criminal and the Epistle proclaim him Bishop But suppose a while Titus had been an Evangelist I would fain know who succeeded him or did all his office expire with his person If so then who shall reject Hereticks when Titus is dead Who shall silence factious Preachers If not then still who succeeded him The Presbyters How can that be For if they had more power after his death than before and governed the Churches which before they did not then to be sure their government in common is not an Apostolical Ordinance much less is it a divine right for it is postuate to them both But if they had no more power after Titus than they had under him how then could they succeed him There was indeed a dereliction of the authority but no succession The succession therefore both in the Metropolis of Crete and also in the other Cities was made by singular persons not by a Colledge for so we find in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 recorded by Eusebius that in Gnossus of Crete Pinytus was a most eminent Bishop and that Philip was the Metropolitan at Gortyna Sed Pinytus nobilissimus apud Cretam in Episcopis fuit saith Eusebius But of this enough SECT XVI S. Mark at Alexandria MY next instance shall be of one that was an Evangelist indeed one that writ the Gospel and he was a Bishop of Alexandria In Scripture we find nothing of him but that he was an Evangelist and a Deacon for he was Deacon to S. Paul and Barnabas when they went to the Gentiles by ordination and special designment made at Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had John to be their Minister viz. John whose sirname was Mark. * But we are not to expect all the ordinations made by the Apostles in their Acts written by S. Luke which end at S. Pauls first going to Rome but many other things their founding of divers Churches their ordination of Bishops their journeys their persecutions their Miracles and Martyrdoms are recorded and relye upon the
authorem antecessorem hoc modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt c. And when S. Irenaeus had reckoned twelve successions in the Church of Rome from the Apostles nunc duodecimo loco ab Apostolis Episcopatum habet Eleutherius Hâc ordinatione saith he successione ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesiâ traditio veritatis praeconiatio pervenit usque ad nos est plenissima haec ostensio unam eandem vivatricem fidem esse quae in Ecclesiâ ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conservata tradita in veritate So that this succession of Bishops from the Apostles ordination must of it self be a very certain thing when the Church made it a main probation of their faith for the books of Scripture were not all gathered together and generally received as yet Now then since this was a main pillar of their Christianity viz. a constant reception of it from hand to hand as being delivered by the Bishops in every chair till we come to the very Apostles that did ordain them this I say being their proof although it could not be more certain than the thing to be proved which in that case was a Divine revelation yet to them it was more evident as being matter of fact and known almost by evidence of sense and as verily believed by all as it was by any one that himself was baptized both relying upon the report of others Radix Christianae societatis per sedes Apostolorum successiones Episcoporum certâ per orbem propagatione diffunditur saith S. Augustin The very root and foundation of Christian communion is spread all over the world by the successions of Apostles and Bishops And is it not now a madness to say there was no such thing no succession of Bishops in the Churches Apostolical no ordination of Bishops by the Apostles and so as S. Paul's phrase is overthrow the faith of some even of the Primitive Christians that used this argument as a great weapon of offence against the invasion of Hereticks and factious people It is enough for us that we can truly say with S. Irenaeus Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis usque ad nos We can reckon those who from the Apostles until now were made Bishops in the Churches and of this we are sure enough if there be any faith in Christians SECT XIX So that Episcopacy is at least an Apostolical Ordinance Of the same Authority with many other points generally believed THE summe is this Although we had not proved the immediate Divine institution of Episcopal power over Presbyters and the whole flock yet Episcopacy is not less than an Apostolical ordinance and delivered to us by the same authority that the observation of the Lords day is For for that in the new Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the Primitive Disciples meeting in their Synaxes upon that day and so also they did on the saturday in the Jewish Synagogues but yet however that at Geneva they were once in meditation to have changed it into a Thursday meeting to have shown their Christian liberty we should think strangely of those men that called the Sunday Festival less than an Apostolical ordinance and necessary now to be kept holy with such observances as the Church hath appointed * Baptism of infants is most certainly a holy and charitable ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this rite upon the tradition of the Apostles and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptist can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating infants upon us as we do of baptizing infants upon them if we speak of immediate Divine institution or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flye to Apostolical traditive ordination and therefore the institution of Bishops must be served first as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture than the baptizing of infants and yet they that deny this are by the just anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Hereticks * Of the same consideration are divers other things in Christianity as the Presbyters consecrating the Eucharist for if the Apostles in the first institution did represent the whole Church Clergy and Laity when Christ said Hoc facite do this then why may not every Christian man there represented do that which the Apostles in the name of all were commanded to do If the Apostles did not represent the whole Church why then do all communicate Or what place or intimation of Christ's saying is there in all the four Gospels limiting Hoc facite id est benedicite to the Clergy and extending Hoc facite id est accipite manducate to the Laity This also rests upon the practice Apostolical and traditive interpretation of H. Church and yet cannot be denied that so it ought to be by any man that would not have his Christendom suspected * To these I add the communion of Women the distinction of books Apocryphal from Canonical that such books were written by such Evangelists and Apostles the whole tradition of Scripture it self the Apostles Creed the feast of Easter which amongst all them that cry up the Sunday-Festival for a divine institution must needs prevail as Caput institutionis it being that for which the Sunday is commemorated These and divers others of greater consequence which I dare not specifie for fear of being misunderstood relye but upon equal faith with this of Episcopacy though I should wave all the arguments for immediate Divine ordinance and therefore it is but reasonable it should be ranked amongst the Credenda of Christianity which the Church hath entertained upon the confidence of that which we call the faith of a Christian whose Master is truth it self SECT XX. And was an office of Power and great Authority WHAT their power and eminence was and the appropriates of their office so ordained by the Apostles appears also by the testimonies before alledged the expressions whereof run in these high terms Episcopatus administrandae Ecclesiae in Lino Linus his Bishoprick was the administration of the whole Church Ecclesiae praefuisse was said of him and Clemens they were both Prefects of the Church or Prelates that 's the Church-word Ordinandis apud Cretam Ecclesiis praeficitur so Titus he is set over all the affairs of the new-founded Churches in Crete In celsiori gradu collocatus placed in a higher order or degree so the Bishop of Alexandria chosen ex Presbyteris from amongst the Presbyters Supra omnia Episcopalis apicis so Philo of that Bishoprick The seat of Episcopal height above all things in Christianity These are its honours Its offices these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. To set in order whatsoever he sees
most certainly they were inhabitants of places very considerably distant Now upon this ground I will raise these considerations 1. If there be a confusion of Names in Scripture particularly of Episcopus and Presbyter as it is contended for on one side and granted on all sides then where both the words are used what shall determine the signification For whether to instance in this place shall Presbyter limit Episcopus or Episcopus extend Presbyter Why may not Presbyter signifie one that is verily a Bishop as Episcopus signifie a meer Presbyter For it is but an ignorant conceit where-ever Presbyter is named to fancy it in the proper and limited sence and not to do so with Episcopus and when they are joyned together rather to believe it in the limited and present sence of Presbyter than in the proper and present sence of Episcopus So that as yet we are indifferent upon the terms These men sent for from Ephesus are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters of the Church but at Miletus Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos there they are called Bishops or overseers So that I may as well say here properly so called Bishops as another may say here were meer Presbyters * And lest it be objected in prejudice of my affirmative that they could not be Bishops because they were of Ephesus there never being but one Bishop in one Church I answer that in the Apostles times this was not true For at Jerusalem there were many at the same time that had Episcopal and Apostolical authority and so at Antioch as at Jerusalem where James and Judas and Silas and the Apostles and Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and at Rome at the same time Peter and Paul and Linus and Clemens but yet but one of them was fixt and properly the Bishop of that place But secondly All these were not of Ephesus but the Elders of all Asia but some from other Countries as appears ver 4. So that although they were all Bishops we might easily find distinct Diocesses for them without incumbring the Church of Ephesus with a multiplied incumbency Thus far then we are upon even terms the community of compellations used here can no more force us to believe them all to be meer Presbyters than Bishops in the proper sence 2. It is very certain that they were not all meer Presbyters at his farewell Sermon for S. Timothy was there and I proved him to be a Bishop by abundant testimony and many of those which are reckoned ver 4. were companions of the Apostle in his journey and imployed in mission Apostolical for the founding of Churches and particularly Sosipater was there and he was Bishop of Iconium and Tychicus of Chalcedon in Bythinia as Dorotheus and Eusebius witness and Trophimus of Arles in France for so it is witnessed by the suffragans of that province in their Epistle to S. Leo. But without all doubt here were Bishops present as well as Presbyters for besides the premisses we have a witness beyond exception the ancient S. Irenaeus In Mileto enim convocatis Episcopis Presbyteris qui erant ab Epheso à reliquis proximis civitatibus quoniam ipse festinavit Hierosolymis Pentecosten agere c. S. Paul making haste to keep his Pentecost at Jerusalem at Miletus did call together the Bishops and Presbyters from Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities * Now to all these in conjunction S. Paul spoke and to these indeed the Holy Ghost had concredited his Church to be fed and taught with Pastoral supravision but in the mean while here is no commission of power or jurisdiction to Presbyters distinctly nor supposition of any such praeexistent power 3. All that S. Paul said in this narration was spoken in the presence of them all but not to them all For that of verse 18. Ye know how I have been with you in Asia in all seasons that indeed was spoke to all the Presbyters that came from Ephesus and the voisâ—â—age viz. in a collective sence not in a distributive for each of them was not in all the circuit of his Asian travels but this was not spoken to Sopater the Berean or to Aristarchus the Thessalonian but to Tychicus and Trophimus who were Asians it might be addressed And for that of vers 25. Ye all among whom I have gone preaching shall see my face no more this was directed only to the Asians for he was never more to come thither but Timothy to be sure saw him afterwards for Saint Paul sent for him a little before his death to Rome and it will not be supposed he neglected to attend him So that if there were a conjunction of Bishops and Presbyters at his meeting as most certainly there was and of Evangelists and Apostolical men besides how shall it be known or indeed with any probability suspected that clause of vers 28. Spiritus S. posuit vos Episcopos pascere Ecclesiam Dei does belong to the Ephesine Presbyters and not particularly to Timothy who was now actually Bishop of Ephesus and to Gaius and to the other Apostolical men who had at least Episcopal authority that is power of founding and ordering Churches without a fixt and limited jurisdiction 4. Either in this place is no jurisdiction at all intimated de antiquo or concredited de novo or if there be it is in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 28. Bishops and Feeders and then it belongs either to the Presbyters in conjunction with and subordination to the Bishops for to the meer Presbyters it cannot be proved to appertain by any intimation of that place 5. How and if these Presbyters which came from Ephesus and the other parts of Asia were made Bishops at Miletus Then also this way all difficulty will be removed And that so it was is more than probable for to be sure Timothy was now entring and fixing upon his See and it was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and the exigence of the thing it self when they were to leave a Church to fix a Bishop in it for why else was a Bishop fixt in Jerusalem so long before any other Churches but because the Apostles were to be scattered from thence and there the first bloody field of Martyrdom was to be fought And the case was equal here for Saint Paul was never to see the Churches of Asia any more and foresaw that ravening Wolves would enter into the Folds and he had actually placed a Bishop in Ephesus and it is unimaginable that he would not make equal provision for other Churches there being the same necessity from the same danger in them all and either Saint Paul did it now or never and that about this time the other six Asian Churches had Angels or Bishops set in their Candlesticks is plain for there had been a succession in the Church of Pergamus Antipas was dead and Saint Timothy had sat in Ephesus and
Antioch for a time was governed for all these were Presbyters in the sence that S. Peter and S. John were and the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem * 4. Suppose this had been true in the sence that any body please to imagine yet this not being by any divine Ordinance that Presbyters should by their counsel assist in external regiment of the Church neither by any imitation of Scripture nor by affirmation of S. Hierom it is sufficient to stifle this by that saying of S. Ambrose Postquà m omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae officia ordinata aliter composita res est quam coeperat It might be so at first de facto and yet no need to be so neither then nor after For at first Ephesus had no Bishop of its own nor Crete and there was no need for S. Paul had the supra-vision of them and S. John and other of the Apostles but yet afterwards S. Paul did send Bishops thither for when themselves were to go away the power must be concredited to another And if they in their absence before the constituting of a Bishop had intrusted the care of the Church with Presbyters yet it was but in dependance on the Apostles and by substitution not by any ordinary power and it ceased at the presence or command of the Apostle or the sending of a Bishop to reside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So S. Ignatius being absent from his Church upon a business of being persecuted he writ to his Presbyters Do you feed the Flock amongst you till God shall shew you who shall be your Ruler viz. My Successor No longer Your Commission expires when a Bishop comes * 5. To the conclusion of S. Hierom's discourse viz. That Bishops are not greater than Presbyters by the truth of Divine disposition I answer that this is true in this sence Bishops are not by Divine disposition greater than all those which in Scripture are called Presbyters such as were the Elders in the Councel at Jerusalem such as were they of Antioch such as S. Peter and S. John 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all and yet all of them were not Bishops in the present sence that is of a fixt and particular Diocess and Jurisdiction * Secondly S. Hierom's meaning is also true in this sence Bishops by the truth of the Lords disposition are not greater than Presbyters viz. quoad exercitium actûs that is they are not tyed to exercise jurisdiction solely in their own persons but may asciscere sibi Presbyteros in commune consilium they may delegate jurisdiction to the Presbyters and that they did not so but kept the exercise of it only in their own hands in S. Hierome's time this is it which he saith is rather by custom than by Divine dispensation for it was otherwise at first viz. de facto and might be so still there being no Law of God against the delegation of power Episcopal * As for the last words in the Objection Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere it is an assumentum of S. Hierom's own for all his former discourse was of the identity of Names and common Regiment de facto not de jure and from a fact to conclude with a Deberet is a Non sequitur unless this Debere be understood according to the exigence of the former Arguments that is they ought not by God's Law but in imitation of the practice Apostolical to wit when things are as they were then when the Presbyters are such as then they were they ought for many considerations and in great cases not by the necessity of a precept * And indeed to do him right he so explains himself Et in communi debere Ecclesiam regere imitantes Moysen qui cum haberet in potestate solus praeesse populo Israel septuaginta elegit cum quibus populum judicaret The Presbyters ought to judge in common with the Bishop for the Bishops ought to imitate Moses who might have ruled alone yet was content to take others to him and himself only to rule in chief Thus S. Hierome would have the Bishops do but then he acknowledges the right of sole jurisdiction to be in them and therefore though his counsel perhaps might be good then yet it is necessary at no time and was not followed then and to be sure is needless now For the Arguments which S. Hierome uses to prove this intention what ever it is I have and shall elsewhere produce for they yield many other considerations than this collection of S. Hierome and prove nothing less than the equality of the Offices of Episcopacy and Presbyterate The same thing is per omnia respondent to the parallel place of S. Chrysostom It is needless to repeat either the Objection or Answer * But however this saying of S. Hierome and the parallel of S. Chrysostom is but like an argument against an evident truth which comes forth upon a desperate service and they are sure to be killed by the adverse party or to run upon their own Swords For either they are to be understood in the sences above explicated and then they are impertinent or else they contradict evidence of Scripture and Catholick antiquity and so are false and die within their own trenches I end this argument of tradition Apostolical with that saying of Saint Hierome in the same place Postquam Vnusquisque eos quos baptizabat suos putabat esse non Christi diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli Ego Apollo Ego autem Cephae in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ut schismatum semina tollerentur That is a publick decree issued out in the Apostles times that in all Churches one should be chosen out of the Clergy and set over them viz. to rule and govern the Flock committed to his charge This I say was in the Apostles times even upon the occasion of the Corinthian schism for then they said I am of Paul and I of Apollo and then it was that he that baptized any Catechumens took them for his own not as Christ's Disciples So that it was tempore Apostolorum that this decree was made for in the time of the Apostles S. James and S. Mark and S. Timothy and S. Titus were made Bishops by S. Hieroms express attestation It was also toto orbe decretum so that if it had not been proved to have been an immediate Divine institution yet it could not have gone much less it being as I have proved and as S. Hierom acknowledges Catholick and Apostolick * SECT XXII And all this hath been the Faith and practice of Christendom BE ye followers of me as I am of Christ is an Apostolical precept We have seen how the Apostles have followed Christ how their tradition is consequent of Divine institution Next let us see how the Church hath followed the Apostles as the Apostles have followed Christ. Catholick practice is the next Basis of the
Christened first in Antioch for they had their baptism some years before they had their Name It had been no wonder then if per omnia it had so happened in the compellation of all the Offices and Orders of the Church SECT XXIV Appropriating the word Episcopus or Bishop to the Supreme Church-officer BUT immediately after the Apostles and still more in descending ages Episcopus signified only the Superintendent of the Church the Bishop in the present and vulgar conception Some few examples I shall give instead of Myriads In the Canons of the Apostles the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop is used thirty six times in appropriation to him that is the Ordinary Ruler and President of the Church above the Clergy and the Laity being twenty four times expresly distinguished from Presbyter and in the other fourteen having particular care for government jurisdiction censures and ordinations committed to him as I shall shew hereafter and all this is within the verge of the first fifty which are received as Authentick by the Councel of Nice of Antioch 25. Canons whereof are taken out of the Canons of the Apostles the Councel of Gangra calling them Canones Ecclesiasticos and Apostolicas traditiones by the Epistle of the first Councel of Constantinople to Damasus which Theodoret hath inserted into his story by the Councel of Ephesus by Tertullian by Constantine the Great and are sometimes by way of eminency called the Canons sometimes the Ecclesiastical Canons sometimes the ancient and received Canons of our Fathers sometimes the Apostolical Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said the Fathers of the Councel in Trullo and Damascen puts them in order next to the Canon of Holy Scripture so in effect does Isidore in his Preface to the work of the Councels for he sets these Canons in front because Sancti Patres eorum sententias authoritate Synodali roborarunt inter Canonicas posuerunt Constitutiones The H. Fathers have established these Canos by the authority of Councels and have put them amongst the Canonical Constitutions And great reason for in Pope Stephen's time they were translated into Latine by one Dionysius at the intreaty of Laurentius because then the old Latine copies were rude and barbarous Now then this second translation of them being made in Pope Stephen's time who was contemporary with S. Irenaeus and S. Cyprian the old copy elder than this and yet after the Original to be sure shews them to be of prime antiquity and they are mentioned by S. Stephen in an Epistle of his to Bishop Hilarius where he is severe in censure of them who do prevaricate these Canons * But for farther satisfaction I refer the Reader to the Epistle of Gregory Holloander to the Moderators of the City of Norimberg I deny not but they are called Apocryphal by Gratian and some others viz. in the sence of the Church just as the Wisdom of Solomon or Ecclesiasticus but yet by most believed to be written by S. Clement from the dictate of the Apostles and without all question are so far Canonical as to be of undoubted Ecclesiastical authority and of the first Antiquity Ignatius his testimony is next in time and in authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop bears the image and representment of the Father of all And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What is the Bishop but he that hath all authority and rule What is the Presbytery but a sacred Colledge Counsellors and helpers or assessors to the Bishop what are Deacons c. So that here is the real and exact distinction of Dignity the appropriation of Name and intimation of Office The Bishop is above all the Presbyters his helpers the Deacons his Ministers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitators of the Angels who are Ministring Spirits But this is of so known so evident a truth that it were but impertinent to insist longer upon it Himself in three of his Epistles uses it nine times in distinct enumeration viz. to the Trallians to the Philadelphians to the Philippians * And now I shall insert these considerations 1. Although it was so that Episcopus and Presbyter were distinct in the beginning after the Apostles death yet sometimes the names are used promiscuously which is an evidence that confusion of names is no intimation much less an argument for the parity of Offices since themselves who sometimes though indeed very seldom confound the names yet distinguish the Offices frequently and dogmatically 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he means the Presbyters of the Church of Antioch so indeed some say and though there be no necessity of admitting this meaning because by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may mean the suffragan Bishops of Syria yet the other may be fairly admitted for himself their Bishop was absent from his Church and had delegated to the Presbytery Episcopal jurisdiction to rule the Church till he being dead another Bishop should be chosen so that they were Episcopi Vicarii and by representment of the person of the Bishop and execution of the Bishops power by delegation were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this was done lest the Church should not be only without a Father but without a Guardian too and yet what a Bishop was and of what authority no man more confident and frequent than Ignatius * Another example of this is in Eusebius speaking of the Youth whom S. John had converted and commended to a Bishop Clemens whose story this was proceeding in the relation sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But the Presbyter unless by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here S. Clement means not the Order but Age of the Man as it is like enough he did for a little after he calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The old man Tum verò Presbyter in domum suam suscipit adolescentem Redde depositum O Episcope saith S. John to him Tunc graviter suspirans Senior c. So S. Clement * But this as it is very unusual so it is just as in Scripture viz. in descent and comprehension for this Bishop also was a Presbyter as well as Bishop or else in the delegation of Episcopal power for so it is in the allegation of Ignatius 2. That this name Episcopus or Bishop was chosen to be appropriate to the supream order of the Clergy was done with fair reason and design For this is no fastuous or pompous title the word is of no dignity and implies none but what is consequent to the just and fair execution of its Offices But Presbyter is a name of dignity and veneration Rise up to the grey head and it transplants the honour and reverence of Age to the office of the Presbyterate And yet this the Bishops left and took that which signifies a meer supra-vision and overlooking of his charge so that if we take estimate from the names Presbyter is a name of
dignity and Episcopus of office and burden * He that desires the office of a Bishop desires a good work 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Nec dicit si quis Episcopatum desiderat bonum desiderat gradum sed bonum opus desiderat quod in majore ordine constitutus possit si velit occasionem habere exercendarum virtutum so S. Hierom. It is not an honourable Title but a good Office and a great opportunity of the exercise of excellent Vertues But for this we need no better testimony than of S. Isidore Episcopatus autem vocabulum inde dictum quòd ille qui superefficitur superintendat curam scil gerens subditorum But Presbyter Graecè Latinè senior interpretatur non pro aetate vel decrepitâ senectute sed propter honorem dignitatem quam acceperunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Julius â—ollux 3. Supposing that Episcopus and Presbyter had been often confounded in Scripture and Antiquity and that both in ascension and descension yet as Priests may be called Angels and yet the Bishop be the Angel of the Church the Angel for his excellency of the Church for his appropriate preheminence and singularity so though Presbyters had been called Bishops in Scripture of which there is not one example but in the sences above explicated to wit in conjunction and comprehension yet the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of eminence the Bishop and in descent of time it came to pass that the compellation which was alwayes his by way of eminence was made his by appropriation And a fair precedent of it we have from the compellation given to our blessed Saviour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls The name Bishop was made sacred by being the appellative of his person and by fair intimation it does more immediately descend upon them who had from Christ more immediate mission and more ample power and therefore Episcopus and Pastor by way of eminence are the most fit appellatives for them who in the Church hath the greatest power office and dignity as participating of the fulness of that power and authority for which Christ was called the Bishop of our Souls * And besides this so fair a Copy besides the using of the word in the prophecy of the Apostolate of Matthias and in the Prophet Isaiah and often in Scripture as I have shewn before any one whereof is abundantly enough for the fixing an appellative upon a Church Officer this name may also be intimated as a distinctive compellation of a Bishop over a Priest because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed often used for the office of Bishops as in the instances above but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for the office of the inferiours for Saint Paul writing to the Romans who then had no Bishop fixed in the Chair of Rome does command them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this for the Bishop that for the subordinate Clergy So then the word Episcopus is fixt at first and that by derivation and example of Scripture and fair congruity of reason SECT XXV Calling the Bishop and him only the Pastor of the Church BUT the Church used other appellatives for Bishops which it is very requisite to specifie that we may understand diverse authorities of the Fathers using those words in appropriation to Bishops which of late have been given to Presbyters ever since they have begun to set Presbyters in the room of Bishops And first Bishops were called Pastors in antiquity in imitation of their being called so in Scripture Eusebius writing the story of S. Ignatius Denique cum Smyrnam venisset ubi Polycarpus erat scribit inde unam epistolam ad Ephesios eorumque Pastorem that is Onesimus for so follows in quâ meminit Onesimi Now that Onesimus was their Bishop himself witnesses in the Epistle here mentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Onesimus was their Bishop and therefore their Pastor and in his Epistle ad Antiochenos himself makes mention of Evodius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your most blessed and worthy Pastor * When Paulus Samosatenus first broached his heresie against the Divinity of our blessed Saviour presently a Councel was called where S. Denis Bishop of Alexandria could not be present Caeteri vero Ecclesiarum Pastores diversis è locis urbibus convenerunt Antiochiam In quibus insignes caeteris praecellentes erant Firmilianus à Caesarea Cappadociae Gregorius Athenodorus Fratres Helenus Sardensis Ecclesiae Episcopus Sed Maximus Bostrensis Episcopus dignus eorum consortio cohaerebat These Bishops Firmilianus and Helenus and Maximus were the Pastors and not only so but Presbyters were not called Pastors for he proceeds sed Presbyteri quamplurimi Diaconi ad supradictam Vrbem convenerunt So that these were not under the general appellative of Pastors And the Councel of Sardis making provision for the manner of election of a Bishop to a Widow-Church when the people is urgent for the speedy institution of a Bishop if any of the Comprovincials be wanting he must be certified by the Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the multitude require a Pastor to be given unto them * The same expression is also in the Epistle of Julius Bishop of Rome to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Alexandria in behalf of their Bishop Athanasius Suscipite itaque Fratres charissimi cum omni divinâ gratiâ Pastorem vestrum ac praesulem tanquam vere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a little after gaudere fruentes orationibus qui Pastorem vestrum esuritis sititis c. The same is often used in S. Hilary and S. Gregory Nazianzen where Bishops are called Pastores magni Great Shepherds or Pastors * When Eusebius the Bishop of Samosata was banished Vniversi lachrymis prosecuti sunt ereptionem Pastoris sui saith Theodoret They wept for the loss of their Pastor And Eulogius a Presbyter of Edessa when he was arguing with the Prefect in behalf of Christianity Et Pastorem inquit habemus nutus illius sequimur we have a Pastor a Bishop certainly for himself was a Priest and his commands we follow But I need not specifie any more particular instances I touch'd upon it before He that shall consider that to Bishops the Regiment of the whole Church was concredited at the first and the Presbyters were but his Assistants in Cities and Villages and were admitted in partem soll citudinis first casually and cursorily and then by station and fixt residency when Parishes were divided and endowed will easily see that this word Pastor must needs be appropriated to Bishops to whom according to the conjunctive expression of S. Peter and the practice of infant Christendom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was intrusted first solely then in communication with others but alwayes principally * But now of late especially
Sozomen in the case of Elpidius Eustathius Basilius of Ancyra and Eleusius Thus also it was decreed in the second and sixth Chapters of the Council of Chalcedon and in the Imperial constitutions Since therefore we never find Presbyters joyned with Bishops in commission or practice or penalty all this while I may infer from the premisses the same thing which the Council of Hispalis expresses in direct and full sentence Episcopus Sacerdotibus ac Ministris solus honorem dare potest solus auferre non potest The Bishop alone may give the Priestly honour he alone is not suffered to take it away This Council was held in the year 657 and I set it down here for this purpose to show that the decree of the fourth Council of Carthage which was the first that licensed Priests to assist Bishops in ordinations yet was not obligatory in the West but for almost 300 years after ordinations were made by Bishops alone But till this Council no pretence of any such conjunction and after this Council sole ordination did not expire in the West for above 200 years together but for ought I know ever since then it hath obtained that although Presbyters joyn not in the consecration of a Bishop yet of a Presbyter they do but this is only by a positive subintroduced constitution first made in a Provincial of Africa and in other places received by insinuation and conformity of practice * I know not what can be said against it I only find a piece of an objection out of S. Cyprian who was a Man so complying with the Subjects of his Diocess that if any man he was like to furnish us with an Antinomy Hunc igitur Fratres Dilectissimi à me à Collegis qui praesentes aderant ordinatum sciatis Here either by his Colleagues he means Bishops or Presbyters If Bishops then many Bishops will be found in the ordination of one to an inferiour order which because it was as I observed before against the practice of Christendom will not easily be admitted to be the sence of S. Cyprian But if he means Presbyters by Collegae then sole ordination is invalidated by this example for Presbyters joyned with him in the ordination of Aurelius I answer that it matters not whether by his Colleagues he means one or the other for Aurelius the Confessor who was the man ordained was ordained but to be a Reader and that was no Order of Divine institution no gift of the Holy Ghost and therefore might be dispensed by one or more by Bishops or Presbyters and no way enters into the consideration of this question concerning the power of collating those orders which are gifts of the Holy Ghost and of Divine ordinance and therefore this although I have seen it once pretended yet hath no validity to impugne the constant practice of Primitive Antiquity But then are all ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop What think we of the reformed Churches 1. For my part I know not what to think The question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all that they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own For we were glad at first of abettors against the Errors of the Roman Church we found these men zealous in it we thanked God for it as we had cause and we were willing to make them recompence by endeavouring to justifie their ordinations not thinking what would follow upon our selves But now it is come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not necessary because we did not condemn the ordinations of their Presbytery 2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the Primitive Church than what we think of the reformed Churches Did the Primitive Councils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by meer Presbyters If they did well what was a vertue in them is no sin in us If they did ill from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations since there is no example in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops and the Presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy is by all Antiquity expounded either of the office or of a Colledge of Presbyters and S. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands as appears by comparing the two Epistles to S. Timothy together and may be so meant by the principles of all sides for if the names be confounded then Presbyter may signifie a Bishop and that they of this Presbytery were not Bishops they can never prove from Scripture where all men grant that the Names are confounded * So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordinations From Scripture That gives it always to Apostles and Bishops as I have proved and that a Priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence From whence then From Antiquity That was so far from licensing ordinations made by Presbyters alone that Presbyters in the Primitive Church did never joyn with Bishops in Collating holy Orders of Presbyter and Deacon till the fouth Council of Carthage much less do it alone rightly and with effect So that as in Scripture there is nothing for Presbyters ordaining so in Antiquity there is much against it And either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity and not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of reformed Presbyteries But for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity than erre with a glorious correspondence But will not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from Orthodox Bishops shall we either sin against our consciences by subscribing to heretical and false resolutions in materiâ fidei or else lose the being of a Church for want of Episcopal ordinations * Indeed if the case were just thus it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches but I have here two things to consider 1. I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion but in cases of necessity But then I consider that M. Du Plessis a man of honour and great learning does attest that at the first reformation there were many Arch-Bishops and Cardinals in Germany England France and Italy that joyned in the reformation whom they might but did not imploy in their ordinations And what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would fain learn that I might make their defence But which is of more and deeper consideration for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution as often happens in the beginning of great changes but it is their constant and resolved practice at least in France that if any returns to them they will reordain him by their Presbytery though he had before Episcopal ordination as both their friends and their enemies bear
the nature of the thing and never any act of ordination by a Non-Bishop approved by any Council decretal or single suffrage of any famous man in Christendom if that ordinations of Bishops were always made and they ever done by Bishops and no pretence of Priests joyning with them in their consecrations and after all this it was declared heresie to communicate the power of giving orders to Presbyters either alone or in conjunction with Bishops as it was in the case of Aerius if all this that is if whatsoever can be imagined be sufficient to make faith in this particular then it is evident that the power and order of Bishops is greater than the power and order of Presbyters to wit in this Great particular of ordination and that by this loud voice and united vote of Christendom SECT XXXIII And Confirmation * BUT this was but the first part of the power which Catholick antiquity affixed to the order of Episcopacy The next is of Confirmation of baptized people And here the rule was this which was thus expressed by Damascen Apostolorum Successorum eorum est per manus impositionem donum Spiritûs sancti tradere It belongs to the Apostles and their successors to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands But see this in particular instance The Council of Eliberis giving permission to faithful people of the Laity to baptize Catechumens in the cases of necessity and exigence of journey Ita tamen ut si supervixerit baptizatus ad Episcopum eum perducat ut per manûs impositionem proficere possit Let him be carried to the Bishop to be improved by imposition of the Bishops hands This was Law It was also a custom saith S. Cyprian Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in Ecclesiâ baptizantur per Praepositos Ecclesiae offerantur per nostram orationem manûs impositionem Spiritum sanctum consequantur signaculo Dominico consummentur And this custom was Catholick too and the Law was of Vniversal concernment Omnes Fideles per manuum impositionem Episcoporum Spiritum Sanctum post baptismum accipere debent ut pleni Christiani accipere debent So S. Vrbane in his decretal Epistle And Omnibus festinandum est sine mora renasci demùm Consignari ab Episcopo septiformem Spiritûs sancti gratiam recipere so saith the old Author of the fourth Epistle under the name of S. Clement All faithful baptized people must go to the Bishop to be consigned and so by imposition of the Bishops hands to obtain the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Ghost Meltiades in his Epistle to the Bishops of Spain affirms Confirmation in this to have a special excellency besides baptism Quòd solùm à summis Sacerdotibus confertur because Bishops only can give Confirmation And the same is said and proved by S. Eusebius in his third Epistle enjoyning great veneration to this holy mystery Quòd ab aliis perfici non potest nisi à summis Sacerdotibus It cannot it may not be performed by any but by the Bishops Thus S. Chrysostom speaking of S. Philip converting the Samaritans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philip baptizing the men of Samaria gave not the Holy Ghost to them whom he had baptized For he had not power For this gift was only of the twelve Apostles And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was peculiar to the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it comes to pass that the principal and chief of the Church do it and none else And George Pachymeres the Paraphrast of S. Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is required that a Bishop should consign faithful people baptized For this was the Ancient practice I shall not need to instance in too many particulars for that the Ministry of Confirmation was by Catholick custom appropriate to Bishops in all ages of the Primitive Church is to be seen by the concurrent testimony of Councils and Fathers particularly of S. Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius Tertullian S. Innocentius the first Damasus S. Leo in John the third in S. Gregory Amphilochius in the life of S. Basil telling the story of Bishop Maximinus confirming Basilius and Eubulus the Council of Orleans and of Melda and lastly of Sevill which affirms Non licere Presbyteris per impositionem manûs fidelibus baptizandis paracletum spiritum tradere It is not lawful for Presbyters to give confirmation for it is properly an act of Episcopal power Chrismate spiritus S. super infunditur Vtraque verò ista manu ore Antistitis impetramus These are enough for authority and dogmatical resolution from antiquity For truth is the first that ever did communicate the power of confirming to Presbyters was Photius the first Author of that unhappy and long lasting schism between the Latin and Greek Churches and it was upon this occasion too For when the Bulgarians were first converted the Greeks sent Presbyters to baptize and to confirm them But the Latins sent again to have them re-confirmed both because as they pretended the Greeks had no jurisdiction in Bulgaria nor the Presbyters a capacity of order to give confirmation The matters of fact and acts Episcopal of Confirmation are innumerable but most famous are those Confirmations made by S. Rembert Bishop of Brema and of S. Malchus attested by S. Bernard because they were ratified by miracle saith the Ancient story I end this with the saying of S. Hierome Exigis ubi scriptum sit In actibus Apostolorum Sed etiamsi Scripturae authoritas non subesset totius orbis in hanc partem consensus instar praecepti obtineret If you ask where it is written viz. that Bishops alone should Confirm It is written in the Acts of the Apostles meaning by precedent though not express precept but if there were no authority of Scripture for it yet the consent of all the world upon this particular is instead of a command *** It was fortunate that S. Hierome hath expressed himself so confidently in this affair for by this we are armed against an objection from his own words for in the same dialogue speaking of some acts of Episcopal priviledge and peculiar ministration particularly of Confirmation he says it was ad honorem potius Sacerdotii quà m ad legis necessitatem For the honour of the Priesthood rather than for the necessity of a law To this the answer is evident from his own words That Bishops should give the Holy Ghost in Confirmation is written in the Acts of the Apostles and now that this is reserved rather for the honour of Episcopacy than a simple necessity in the nature of the thing makes no matter For the question here that is only of concernment is not to what end this power is reserved to the Bishop but by whom it was reserved Now S. Hierome says it was done apud
but yet of no objection in case of Confirmation * And indeed Consignari is us'd in Antiquity for any signing with the Cross and anealing Thus it is used in the first Arausican Council for extreme Vnction which is there in case of extreme necessity permitted to Presbyters Haereticos in mortis discrimine positos Si Catholici esse desiderent si desit Episcopus à Presbyteris cum Chrismate benedictione Consignari placet Consign'd is the word and it was clearly in extreme Unction for that rite was not then ceased and it was in anealing a dying body and a part of reconciliation and so limited by the sequent Canon and not to be fancied of any other consignation But I return *** The first Council of Toledo prohibites any from making Chrisme but Bishops only and takes order Vt de singulis Ecclesiis ad Episcopum ante diem Paschae Diaconi destinentur ut confectum Chrisma ab Episcopo destinatum ad diem Paschae possit occurrere that the Chrisme be fetcht by the Deacons from the Bishop to be used in all Churches But for what use why it was destinatum ad diem Paschae says the Canon against the Holy time of Easter and then at Easter was the solemnity of publick baptisms so that it was to be used in baptism And this sence being premised the Canon permits to Presbyters to sign with Chrisme the same thing that S. Gregory did to the Priests of Sardinia Statutum verò est Diaconum non Chrismare sed Presbyterum absente Episcopo praesente verò si ab ipso fuerit praeceptum Now although this be evident enough yet it is something clearer in the first Arausican Council Nullus ministrorum qui Baptizandi recipit officium sine Chrismate usquam debet progredi quia inter nos placuit semel in baptismate Chrismari The case is evident that Chrismation or Consigning with ointment was used in baptism and it is as evident that this Chrismation was it which S. Gregory permitted to the Presbyters not the other for he expresly forbad the other and the exigence of the Canons and practice of the Church expound it so and it is the same which S. Innocent the first decreed in more express and distinctive terms Presbyteris Chrismate baptizatos ungere licet sed quod ab Episcopo fuerit Consecratum there is a clear permission of consigning with Chrisme in baptism but he subjoyns a prohibition to Priests for doing it in Confirmation Non tamen frontem eodem oleo signare quod solis debetur Episcopis cùm tradunt Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum By the way some that they might the more clearly determine S. Gregorie's dispensation to be only in baptismal Chrisme read it Vt baptizandos ungant not baptizatos so Gratian so S. Thomas but it is needless to be troubled with that for Innocentius in the decretal now quoted useth the word Baptizatos and yet clearly distinguishes this power from the giving the Chrisme in Confirmation I know no other objection and these we see hinder not but that having such evidence of fact in Scripture of Confirmations done only by Apostles and this evidence urged by the Fathers for the practice of the Church and the power of Confirmation by many Councils and Fathers appropriated to Bishops and denied to Presbyters and in this they are not only Doctors teaching their own opinion but witnesses of a Catholick practice and do actually attest it as done by a Catholick consent and no one example in all antiquity ever produced of any Priest that did no law that a Priest might impose hands for Confirmation we may conclude it to be a power Apostolical in the Original Episcopal in the Succession and that in this power the order of a Bishop is higher than that of a Presbyter and so declared by this instance of Catholick practice SECT XXXIV And Jurisdiction Which they expressed in Attributes of Authority and great Power THUS far I hope we are right But I call to mind that in the Nosotrophium of the old Philosopher that undertook to cure all Calentures by Bathing his Patients in water some were up to the Chin some to the Middle some to the Knees So it is amongst the enemies of the Sacred Order of Episcopacy some endure not the Name and they indeed deserve to be over head and ears some will have them all one in office with Presbyters as at first they were in Name and they had need bath up to the Chin but some stand shallower and grant a little distinction a precedency perhaps for order-sake but no preheminence in reiglement no superiority of Jurisdiction Others by all means would be thought to be quite through in behalf of Bishops order and power such as it is but call for a reduction to the Primitive state and would have all Bishops like the Primitive but because by this means they think to impair their power they may well endure to be up to the ankles their error indeed is less and their pretence fairer but the use they make of it of very ill consequence But curing the mistake will quickly cure this distemper That then shall be the present issue that in the Primitive Church Bishops had more power and greater exercise of absolute jurisdiction than now Men will endure to be granted or than themselves are very forward to challenge 1. Then The Primitive Church expressing the calling and offices of a Bishop did it in terms of presidency and authority Episcopus typum Dei Patris omnium gerit saith S. Ignatius The Bishop carries the representment of God the Father that is in power and authority to be sure for how else so as to be the supreme in suo ordine in offices Ecclesiastical And again Quid enim aliud est Episcopus quà m is qui omni Principatu potestate superior est Here his superiority and advantage is expressed to be in his power A Bishop is greater and higher than all other in power viz. in materiâ or gradu religionis And in his Epistle to the Magnesians Hortor ut hoc sit omnibus studium in Dei concordiâ omnia agere Episcopo praesidente loco Dei Do all things in Vnity the Bishop being President in the place of God President in all things And with a fuller tide yet in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Dei quidem propter Principatum Christi verò propter Sacerdotium It is full of fine expression both for Eminency of order and Jurisdiction The Bishop is the Prince of the Priests bearing the Image of God for his Principality that 's his jurisdiction and power but of Christ himself for his Priesthood that 's his Order S. Ignatius hath spoken fairly and if we consider that he was so primitive a man that himself saw Christ in the flesh and liv'd a man of exemplary sanctity and died a Martyr and hath
been honoured as a holy Catholick by all posterity certainly these testimonies must needs be of great pressure being Sententiae repetiti dogmatis not casually slipt from him and by incogitancy but resolutely and frequently But this is attested by the general expressions of after ages Fungaris circa eum Potestate honoris tui saith S. Cyprian to Bishop Rogatianus Execute the Power of thy dignity upon the refractory Deacon And Vigor Episcopalis and Authoritas Cathedrae are the words expressive of that power whatsoever it be which S. Cyprian calls upon him to assert in the same Epistle This is high enough So is that which he presently subjoyns calling the Bishops power Ecclesiae gubernandae sublimem ac divinam potestatem A high and a divine power and authority in regiment of the Church * Locus Magisterii traditus ab Apostolis so S. Irenaeus calls Episcopacy A place of mastership or authority delivered by the Apostles to the Bishops their successors Eusebius speaking of Dionysius who succeeded Heraclas he received saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishoprick of the Precedency over the Churches of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the Council of Sardis to the top or height of Episcopacy Apices Principes omnium so Optatus calls Bishops the Chief and Head of all and S. Denys of Alexandria Scribit ad Fabianum Vrbis Romae Episcopum ad alios quam plurimos Ecclesiarum Principes de fide Catholicâ suâ saith Eusebius And Origen calls the Bishop eum qui totius Ecclesiae arcem obtinet He that hath obtained the Tower or height of the Church The Fathers of the Council of Constantinople in Trullo ordained that the Bishops dispossessed of their Churches by incroachments of Barbarous people upon the Churches pale so as the Bishop had in effect no Diocess yet they should enjoy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the authority of their Presidency according to their proper state their appropriate presidency And the same Council calls the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Prelate or Prefect of the Church I know not how to expound it better But it is something more full in the Greeks Council of Carthage commanding that the convert Donatists should be received according to the will and pleasure of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Governs the Church in that place * And in the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop hath Power over the affairs of the Church Hoc quidem tempore Romanae Ecclesiae Sylvester retinacula gubernabat Saint Sylvester the Bishop held the Reines or the stern of the Roman Church saith Theodoret But the instances of this kind are infinite two may be as good as twenty and these they are The first is of S. Ambrose Honor Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari The honour and sublimity of Episcopal Order is beyond all comparison great And their commission he specifies to be in Pasce oves meas Vnde regendae Sacerdotibus contraduntur meritò rectoribus suis subdi dicuntur c. The sheep are delivered to Bishops as to Rulers and are made their Subjects and in the next Chapter Haec verò cuncta Fratres ideò nos praemisisse cognoscere debetis ut ostenderemus nihil esse in hoc saeculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri ut cum dignitatem Episcopatûs Episcoporum oraculis demonstramus dignè noscamus quid sumus actione potius quà m Nomine demonstremus These things I have said that you may know nothing is higher nothing more excellent than the dignity and Eminence of a Bishop c. * The other is of S. Hierom Cura totius Ecclesiae ad Episcopum pertinet The care of the whole Church appertains to the Bishop But more confidently spoken is that in his dialogue adversus Luciferianos Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis Dignitate pendet cui si non exors quaedam ab omnibus Eminens detur potestas tot in Ecclesiis efficientur schismata quot Sacerdotes The safety of the Church consists in the dignity of a Bishop to whom unless an Eminent and Vnparallel'd power be given by all there will be as many Schisms as Priests Here is dignity and authority and power enough expressed and if words be expressive of things and there is no other use of them then the Bishop is Superiour in a Peerless and Incomparable Authority and all the whole Diocess are his subjects viz. in regimine Spirituali SECT XXXV Requiring Vniversal Obedience to be given to Bishops by Clergie and Laity BUT from words let us pass to things For the Faith and practice of Christendom require obedience Universal obedience to be given to Bishops I will begin again with Ignatius that these men who call for reduction of Episcopacy to Primitive consistence may see what they gain by it for the more Primitive the testimonies are the greater exaction of obedience to Bishops for it happened in this as in all other things at first Christians were more devout more pursuing of their duties more zealous in attestation of every particle of their faith and that Episcopacy is now come to so low an ebbe it is nothing but that it being a great part of Christianity to honour and obey them it hath the fate of all other parts of our Religion and particularly of Charity come to so low a declension as it can scarce stand alone and faith which shall scarce be found upon earth at the coming of the Son of Man But to our business S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Trallis Necesse itaque est saith he quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil Tentetis So the Latin of Vedelius which I the rather chuse because I am willing to give all the advantage I can It is necessary saith the good Martyr that whatsoever ye do you should attempt nothing without your Bishop And to the Magnesians Decet itaque vos obedire Episcopo in nullo illi refragari It is fitting that ye should obey your Bishop and in nothing to be refractory to him Here is both a Decet and a Necesse est already It is very fitting it is necessary But if it be possible we have a fuller expression yet in the same Epistle Quemadmodum enim Dominus sine Patre nihil facit nec enim possumfacere à me ipso quicquam sic vos sine Episcopo nec Diaconus nec Laiconus nec Laicus Nec quicquam videatur vobis Consentaneum quod sit praeter illius Judicium quod enim tale est Deo inimicum Here is obedience universal both in respect of things and persons and all this no less than absolutely necessary For as Christ obeyed his Father in all things saying of my self I can do nothing so nor you without your Bishop whoever you be whether Priest or Deacon or Layman Let nothing please you which the Bishop
great antiquity were not the prime constitutions in those several Churches respectively but meer derivations from tradition Apostolical for not only the thing but the words so often mentioned are in the 40 Canon of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same is repeated in the twenty fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters and Deacons must do nothing without leave of the Bishop for to him the Lords people is committed and he must give an account for their souls * And if a Presbyter shall contemn his own Bishop making conventions apart and erecting another altar he is to be deposed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith the 32 Canon as a lover of Principality intimating that he arrogates Episcopal dignity and so is ambitious of a Principality The issue then is this * The Presbyters and Clergy and Laity must obey therefore the Bishop must govern and give them laws It was particularly instanced in the case of Saint Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret He adorned and instructed Pontus with these laws so he reckoning up the extent of his jurisdiction * But now descend we to a specification of the power and jurisdiction of Bishops SECT XXXVI Appointing them to be Judges of the Clergie and Spiritual causes of the Laity THE Bishops were Ecclesiastical Judges over the Presbyters the inferiour Clergy and the Laity What they were in Scripture who were constituted in presidency over causes spiritual I have already twice explicated and from hence it descended by a close succession that they who watched for souls they had the rule over them and because no regiment can be without coercion therefore there was inherent in them a power of cognition of causes and coercion of persons * The Canons of the Apostles appointing censures to be inflicted on delinquent persons makes the Bishops hand to do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Presbyter or Deacon be excommunicated by the Bishop he must not be received by any else but by him that did so censure him unless the Bishop that censured him be dead The same is repeated in the Nicene Council only it is permitted that any one may appeal to a Synod of Bishops Si fortè aliquâ indignatione aut contentione aut qualibet commotione Episcopi sui excommunicati sint if he thinks himself wronged by prejudice or passion and when the Synod is met hujusmodi examinent Quaestiones But by the way it must be Synodus Episcoporum so the Canon Vt ita demum hi qui ob culpas suas Episcoporum suorum offensas meritò contraxerunt dignè etiam à caeteris excommunicati habeantur quousque in communi vel ipsi Episcopo suo visum fuerit humaniorem circà eos ferre sententiam The Synod of Bishops must ratifie the excommunication of all those who for their delinquencies have justly incurred the displeasure of their Bishop and this censure to stick upon them till either the Synod or their own Bishop shall give a more gentle sentence ** This Canon we see relates to the Canon of the Apostles and affixes the judicature of Priests and Deacons to the Bishops commanding their censures to be held as firm and valid only as the Apostles Canon names Presbyters and Deacons particularly so the Nicene Canon speaks indefinitely and so comprehends all of the Diocess and jurisdiction The fourth Council of Carthage gives in express terms the cognizance of Clergy-causes to the Bishop calling aid from a Synod in case a Clergy-man prove refractory and disobedient Discordantes Clericos Episcopus vel ratione vel potestate ad concordiam trahat inobedientes Synodus per audientiam damnet If the Bishops reason will not end the controversies of Clergie-men his power must but if any man list to be contentious intimating as I suppose out of the Nicene Council with frivolous appeals and impertinent protraction the Synod of Bishops must condemn him viz. for his disobeying his Bishops sentence * The Council of Antioch is yet more particular in its Sanction for this affair intimating a clear distinction of proceeding in the cause of a Bishop and the other of the Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If a Bishop shall be deposed by a Synod viz. of Bishops according to the exigence of the Nicene Canon or a Priest or Deacon by his own Bishop if he meddles with any Sacred offices he shall be hopeless of absolution But here we see that the ordinary Judge of a Bishop is a Synod of Bishops but of Priests and Deacons the Bishop alone And the sentence of the Bishop is made firm omni modo in the next Canon Si quis Presbyter vel Diaconus proprio contempto Episcopo privatim congregationem effecerit altare erexerit Episcopo accersente non obedierit nec velit ei parere nec morem gerere primò secundò vocanti hic damnetur omni modo Quòd si Ecclesiam conturbare solicitare persistat tanquam seditiosus per potestates exteras opprimatur What Presbyter soever refuses to obey his Bishop and will not appear at his first or second Summons let him be deposed and if he shall persist to disturb the Church let him be given over to the secular powers * Add to this the first Canon of the same Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If any one be excommunicate by his own Bishop c. as it is in the foregoing Canons of Nice and the Apostles The Result of these Sanctions is this The Bishop is the Judge the Bishop is to inflict censures the Presbyters and Deacons are either to obey or to be deposed No greater evidence in the world of a Superiour jurisdiction and this established by all the power they had and this did extend not only to the Clergy but to the Laity for that 's the close of the Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This constitution is concerning the Laity and the Presbyters and the Deacons and all that are within the rule viz. that if their Bishop have sequestred them from the holy Communion they must not be suffered to communicate elsewhere But the Audientia Episcopalis The Bishops Audience-Court is of larger power in the Council of Chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If any Clergy-man have any cause against a Clergy-man let him by no means leave his own Bishop and run to Secular Courts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But first let the cause be examined before their own Bishop or by the Bishops leave before such persons as the contesting parties shall desire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever does otherwise let him suffer under the censures of the Church Here is not only a subordination of the Clergie in matters criminal but also the civil causes of the Clergie must be submitted to the Bishop under pain of the Canon * I end this with the attestation of the Council of Sardis exactly of the same Spirit the same injunction and almost the
same words with the former Canons Hosius the President said If any Deacon or Priest or of the inferiour Clergy being excommunicated shall go to another Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 knowing him to be excommunicated by his own Bishop that other Bishop must by no means receive him into his communion Thus far we have matter of publick right and authority declaring the Bishop to be the Ordinary Judge of the causes and persons of Clergy-men and have power of inflicting censures both upon the Clergy and the Laity And if there be any weight in the concurrent testimony of the Apostolical Canons of the General Councils of Nice and of Chalcedon of the Councils of Antioch of Sardis of Carthage then it is evident that the Bishop is the Ordinary Judge in all matters of Spiritual cognizance and hath power of censures and therefore a Superiority of jurisdiction This thing only by the way in all these Canons there is no mention made of any Presbyters assistant with the Bishop in his Courts For though I doubt not but the Presbyters were in some Churches and in some times 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as S. Ignatius calls them Counsellors and Assessors with the Bishop yet the power and the right of inflicting censures is only expressed to be in the Bishop and no concurrent jurisdiction mentioned in the Presbytery but of this hereafter more particularly * Now we may see these Canons attested by practice and dogmatical resolution S. Cyprian is the man whom I would chuse in all the world to depose in this cause because he if any man hath given all dues to the Colledge of Presbyters and yet if he reserves the Superiority of jurisdiction to the Bishop and that absolutely and independently of conjunction with the Presbytery we are all well enough and without suspicion Diù patientiam meam tenui Fratres Charissimi saith he writing to the Presbyters and Deacons of his Church He was angry with them for admitting the lapsi without his consent and though he was as willing as any man to comply both with the Clergy and people of his Diocess yet he also must assert his own priviledges and peculiar Quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensâ Domini quando aliqui de Presbyteris nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores sed neque futurum Domini judicium neque nunc praepositum sibi Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino sub antecessoribus factum est ut cum contumcliâ contemptu Praepositi totum sibi vendicent The matter was that certain Presbyters had reconciled them that fell in persecution without the performance of penance according to the severity of the Canon and this was done without the Bishops leave by the Presbyters Forgetting their own place and the Gospel and their Bishop set over them a thing that was never heard of till that time Totum sibi vendicabant They that might do nothing without the Bishops leave yet did this whole affair of their own heads Well! Upon this S. Cyprian himself by his own authority alone suspends them till his return and so shews that his authority was independent theirs was not and then promises they shall have a fair hearing before him in the presence of the Confessors and all the people Vtar eâ admonitione quâ me uti Dominus jubet ut interim prohibeantur offerre acturi apud nos apud Confessores ipsos apud plebem Vniversam causam suam * Here it is plain that S. Cyprian suspended these Presbyters by his own authority in absence from his Church and reserved the further hearing of the cause till it should please God to restore him to his See But this fault of the Presbyters S. Cyprian in the two next Epistles does still more exaggerate saying they ought to have asked the Bishops leave Sicut in praeteritum semper sub antecessoribus factum est for so was the Catholick custom ever that nothing should be done without the Bishops leave but now by doing otherwise they did prevaricate the divine commandment and dishonour the Bishop Yea but the Confessors interceded for the lapsi and they seldom were discountenanc'd in their requests What should the Presbyters do in this case S. Cyprian tells them writing to the Confessors Petitiones itaque desideria vestra Episcopo servent Let them keep your petitions for the Bishop to consider of But they did not therefore he suspended them because they did not reservare Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui cathedrae Preserve the honour of the Bishops chair and the Episcopal authority in presuming to reconcile the penitents without the Bishops leave The same S. Cyprian in his Epistle to Rogatianus resolves this affair for when a contemptuous bold Deacon had abused his Bishop he complained to S. Cyprian who was an Arch-Bishop and indeed S. Cyprian tells him he did honour him in the business that he would complain to him Cum pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae Authoritate haberes potestatem quâ posses de illo statim vindicari When as he had power Episcopal and sufficient authority himself to have punished the Deacon for his petulancy The whole Epistle is very pertinent to this Question and is clear evidence for the great authority of Episcopal jurisdiction the summe whereof is in this incouragement given to Rogatianus by S. Cyprian Fungaris circa eum Potestate Honoris tui ut eum vel deponas vel abstineas Exercise the power of your honour upon him and either suspend him or depose him And therefore he commends Cornelius the Bishop of Rome for driving Felicissimus the Schismatick from the Church vigore pleno quo Episcopum agere oportet with full authority as becomes a Bishop Socrates telling of the promotion and qualities of S. John Chrysostom says That in reforming the lives of the Clergy he was too fastuous and severe Mox igitur in ipso initio quum Clericis asper videretur Ecclesiae erat plurimis exosus veluti furio sum universi declinabant He was so rigid in animadversions against the Clergie that he was hated by them which clearly shows that the Bishop had jurisdiction and authority over them for tyranny is the excess of power and authority is the subject matter of rigour and austerity But this power was intimated in that bold speech of his Deacon Serapio Nunquam poteris ô Episcope hos corrigere nisi uno baculo percusseris Vniversos Thou canst not amend the Clergie unless thou strikest them all with thy pastoral rod. S. John Chrysostom did not indeed do so but non multum pòst temporis plurimos clericorum pro diversis exemit causis He deprived and suspended most of the Clergie-men for divers causes and for this his severity he wanted no slanders against him for the delinquent Ministers set the people on work against him * But here we see that the power of censures was
their Brethren viz. such as bring Clergy-causes and Catholick doctrine to be punished in secular tribunals For Excommunication is called by the Fathers Mucro Episcopalis the Bishops sword to cut offenders off from the Catholick communion I add no more but that excellent saying of S. Austin which doth freely attest both the preceptive and vindictive power of the Bishop over his whole Diocess Ergo praecipiant tantum modò nobis quid facere debeamus qui nobis praesunt faciamus orent pro nobis non autem nos corripiant arguant si non fecerimus Imò omnia fiant quoniam Doctores Ecclesiarum Apostoli omnia faciebant praecipiebant quae fierent corripiebant si non fierent c. And again Corripiantur itaque à praepositis suis subditi correptionibus de charitate venientibus pro culparum diversitate diversis vel minoribus vel amplioribus quia ipsa quae damnatio nominatur quam facit Episcopale judicium quâ poenâ in Ecclesiâ nulla major est potest si Deus voluerit in correptionem saluberrimam cedere atque proficere Here the Bishops have a power acknowledged in them to command their Diocess and to punish the disobedient and of excommunication by way of proper Ministery damnatio quam facit Episcopale judicium a condemnation of the Bishops infliction Thus it is evident by the constant practice of Primitive Christendom by the Canons of three General Councils and divers other Provincial which are made Catholick by adoption and in inserting them into the Code of the Catholick Church that the Bishop was Judge of his Clergy and of the Lay-people of his Diocess that he had power to inflict censures upon them in case of Delinquency that his censures were firm and valid and as yet we find no Presbyters joyning either in commission or fact in power or exercise but excommunication and censures to be appropriated to Bishops and to be only dispatch'd by them either in full Council if it was a Bishops cause or in his own Consistory if it was the cause of a Priest or the inferior Clergy or a Laick unless in cases of appeal and then it was in pleno Concilio Episcoporum in a Synod of Bishops And all this was confirmed by secular authority as appears in the imperial Constitutions For the making up this Paragraph complete I must insert two considerations First concerning universality of causes within the Bishops cognizance And secondly of Persons The Ancient Canons asserting the Bishops power in Cognitione causarum speak in most large and comprehensive terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They have power to do what they list Their power is as large as their will So the Council of Chalcedon before cited It was no larger though than S. Pauls expression for to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you whether ye be obedient in all things A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the stile of the Church runs in descension 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Ignatius ye must do nothing without your Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to contradict him in nothing The expression is frequent in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance so the Council of Antioch * But these Universal expressions must be understood secundùm Materiam subjectam so S. Ignatius expresses himself Ye must without your Bishop do nothing nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of things pertaining to the Church So also the Council of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The things of the Church are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted They are Ecclesiastical persons it is an Ecclesiastical power they are indowed with it is for a spiritual end viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance And what are those things 1. Then it is certain that since Christ hath professed his Kingdom is not of this world that government which he hath constituted de novo does no way in the world make any intrenchment upon the Royalty Hostis Herodes impie Christum venire quid times Non eripit mortalia Qui regna dat Coelestia So the Church us'd to sing Whatsoever therefore the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all actions civil all publick violations of justice all breach of Municipal laws These the Church hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes and Commonwealths it be indulged to them in honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae but then when it is once indulged that act which does annul such pious vows is just contrary to that religion which first gave them and then unless there was sin in the donative the ablation of it is contra honorem Dei S. Matris Ecclesiae But this it may be is impertinent 2. The Bishops All comes in after this And he is Judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought in upon a new stock by its new distinctive Principles I say by its new Principles for there where it extends justice and pursues the laws of nature there the secular tribunal is also extended if it be Christian The Bishop gets nothing of that But those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the republick hath introduc'd all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith Ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals subordination of inferiour Clergie to their Superiour censures irregularities Orders hierarchical rites and ceremonies liturgies and publick forms of prayer as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius teaching his Church the first use of Antiphona's and Doxologies and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these as dispensation of Church Vessels and Ornaments and Goods receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church and whatsoever is of the same consideration according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles Praecipimus ut in potestate suâ Episcopus Ecclesiae res habeat Let the Bishop have the disposing the goods of the Church adding this reason Si enim animae hominum pretiosae illi sint creditae multò magis eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people 3. There are some things of a mixt nature and something of the secular interest and something of the Ecclesiastical concurr to their constitution and these are of double cognizance the secular power and the Ecclesiastical do both in their several capacities take knowledge of them Such are the delinquencies of Clergy-men who are both Clergy
and subjects too Clerus Domini and Regis subditi and for their delinquencies which are in materiâ justitiae the secular tribunal punishes as being a violation of that right which the State must defend but because done by a person who is a member of the sacred hierarchy and hath also an obligation of special duty to his Bishop therefore the Bishop also may punish him And when the commonwealth hath inflicted a penalty the Bishop also may impose a censure for every sin of a Clergy-man is two But of this nature also are the convening of Synods the power whereof is in the King and in the Bishop severally insomuch as both the Church and the commonwealth in their several respects have peculiar interest The commonwealth for preservation of peace and charity in which religion hath the deepest interest and the Church for the maintenance of faith And therefore both Prince and Bishop have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigence of several occasions and have several powers for the engagement of clerical obedience and attendance upon such solemnities 4. Because Christianity is after the commonwealth and is a capacity superadded to it therefore those things which are of mixt cognizance are chiefly in the King The Supremacy here is his and so it is in all things of this nature which are called Ecclesiastical because they are in materiâ Ecclesiae ad finem religionis but they are of a different nature and use from things Spiritual because they are not issues of those things which Christianity hath introduc'd de integro and are separate from the interest of the commonwealth in its particular capacity for such things only are properly spiritual 5. The Bishops Jurisdiction hath a compulsory derived from Christ only viz. infliction of censures by excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it But yet this internal compulsory through the duty of good Princes to God and their favour to the Church is assisted by the secular arm either superadding a temporal penalty in case of contumacy or some other way abetting the censures of the Church and it ever was so since commonwealths were Christian. So that ever since then Episcopal Jurisdiction hath a double part an external and an internal this is derived from Christ that from the King which because it is concurrent in all acts of Jurisdiction therefore it is that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external compulsory * And for this cause we shall sometimes see the Emperor or his Prefect or any man of consular dignity fit Judge when the Question is of Faith not that the Prefect was to Judge of that or that the Bishops were not but in case of the pervicacy of a peevish Heretick who would not submit to the power of the Church but flew to the secular power for assistance hoping by taking sanctuary there to ingage the favour of the Prince In this case the Bishops also appealed thither not for resolution but assistance and sustentation of the Churches power It was so in the case of Aetiu◠the Arian and Honoratus the Prefect Constantius being Emperor For all that the Prefect did or the Emperor in this case was by the prevalency of his intervening authority to reconcile the disagreeing parties and to incourage the Catholicks but the precise act of Judicature even in this case was in the Bishops for they deposed Aetius for his Heresie for all his confident appeal and Macedonius Eleusius Basilius Ortasius and Dracontius for personal delinquencies * And all this is but to reconcile this act to the resolution and assertion of S. Ambrose who refused to be tried in a cause of faith by Lay-Judges though Delegates of the Emperor Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicâsse When was it ever known that Lay-men in a cause of Faith did judge a Bishop To be sure it was not in the case of Honoratus the Prefect for if they had appealed to him or to his Master Constantius for judgment of the Article and not for incouragement and secular assistance S. Ambrose in his confident Question of Quando audisti had quickly been answered even with saying presently after the Council of Ariminum in the case of Aetius and Honoratus * Nay it was one of the causes why S. Ambrose deposed Palladius in the Council of Aquileia because he refused to answer except it were before some honourable personages of the Laity And it is observable that the Arians were the first and indeed they offered at it often that did desire Princes to judge matters of faith for they despairing of their cause in a Conciliary trial hoped to ingage the Emperor on their party by making him Umpire But the Catholick Bishops made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of powers and jurisdictions and as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray that right which Christ concredited to them to the incroachment of an exteriour jurisdiction and power It is a good story that Suidas tells of Leontius Bishop of Tripolis in Lydia a man so famous and exemplary that he was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of the Church that when Constantius the Emperor did precede amongst the Bishops and undertook to determine causes of meer spiritual cognizance in stead of a Placet he gave this answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I wonder that thou being set over thing of a different nature medlest with those things that only appertain to Bishops The Militia and the Politia are thine but matters of Faith and Spirit are of Episcopal cognizance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such was the freedom of the ingenuous Leontius Answerable to which was that Christian and fair acknowledgment of Valentinian when the Arian Bishops of Bithynia and the Hellespont sent Hypatianus their Legat to desire him Vt dignaretur ad emendationem dogmatis interesse That he would be pleased to mend the Article Respondens Valentinianus ait Mihi quidem quum unus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari Verùm Sacerdotes apud seipsos congregentur ubi voluerint Cúmque haec respondisset Princeps in Lampsacum convenerunt Episcopi So Sozomen reports the story The Emperor would not meddle with matters of faith but referred the deliberation and decision of them to the Bishops to whom by Gods law they did appertain upon which intimation given the Bishops convened in Lampsacum And thus a double power met in the Bishops A Divine right to decide the Article Mihi fas non est saith the Emperor it is not lawful for me to meddle And then a right from the Emperor to assemble for he gave them leave to call a Council These are two distinct powers one from Christ the other from the Prince *** And now upon this occasion I have fair opportunity to insert a consideration The Bishops have power over all causes emergent
in their Diocesses all I mean in the sence above explicated they have power to inflict censures excommunication is the highest the rest are parts of it and in order to it Whether or no must Church-censures be used in all such causes as they take cognizance of or may not the secular power find out some external compulsory in stead of it and forbid the Church to use excommunication in certain cases 1. To this I answer that if they be such cases in which by the law of Christ they may or such in which they must use excommunication then in these cases no power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away 2. As no humane power can disrobe the Church of the power of excommunication so no humane power can invest the Church with a lay Compulsory For if the Church be not capable of a jus Gladii as most certainly she is not the Church cannot receive power to put men to death or to inflict lesser pains in order to it or any thing above a salutary penance I mean in the formality of a Church-tribunal then they give the Church what she must not cannot take I deny not but Clergy-men are as capable of the power of life and death as any men but not in the formality of Clergy-men A Court of life and death cannot be an Ecclesiastical tribunal and then if any man or company of Men should perswade the Church not to inflict her censures upon delinquents in some cases in which she might lawfully inflict them and pretend to give her another compulsory they take away the Church-consistory and erect a vey secular Court dependant on themselves and by consequence to be appealed to from themselves and so also to be prohibited as the Lay-Superiour shall see cause for * Whoever therefore should be consenting to any such permutation of power is Traditor potestatis quam S. Mater Ecclesia à sponso suo acceperat He betrays the individual and inseparable right of holy Church For her censure she may inflict upon her delinquent children without asking leave Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security The other is begged or borrowed none of her own nor of a fit edge to be used in her abscisions and coercions I end this consideration with that memorable Canon of the Apostles of so frequent use in this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Bishop have the care or provision for all affairs of the Church and let him dispense them velut Deo contemplante as in the sight of God to whom he must be responsive for all his Diocess The next Consideration concerning the Bishops jurisdiction is of what persons he is Judge And because our Scene lyes here in Church-practice I shall only set down the doctrine of the Primitive Church in this affair and leave it under that representation Presbyters and Deacons and inferiour Clerks and the Laity are already involved in the precedent Canons No man there was exempted of whose soul any Bishop had charge And all Christs sheep hear his voice and the call of his shepherd-Ministers * Theodoret tells a story that when the Bishops of the Province were assembled by the command of Valentinian the Emperor for the choice of a Successor to Auxentius in the See of Milaine the Emperor wished them to be careful in the choice of a Bishop in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Set such an one in the Archiepiscopal Throne that we who rule the Kingdom may sincerely submit our head unto him viz. in matters of spiritual import * And since all power is derived from Christ who is a King and a Priest and a Prophet Christian Kings are Christi Domini and Vicars in his Regal power but Bishops in his Sacerdotal and Prophetical * So that the King hath a Supreme Regal power in causes of the Church ever since his Kingdom became Christian and it consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by Gods law imployed for regiment and cure of souls and in these also all the external compulsory and jurisdiction is his own For when his Subjects became Christian Subjects himself also upon the same terms becomes a Christian Ruler and in both capacities he is to rule viz. both as Subjects and as Christian Subjects except only in the precise issues of Sacerdotal authority And therefore the Kingdom and the Priesthood are excelled by each other in their several capacities For superiority is usually expressed in three words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellency Impery and Power The King is supreme to the Bishop in Impery The Bishop hath an Excellency viz. of Spiritual Ministration which Christ hath not concredited to the King but in Power both King and Bishop have it distinctly in several capacities the King in potentiâ gladii the Bishop in potestate clavium The Sword and the Keys are the emblems of their distinct power Something like this is in the third Epistle of S. Clement translated by Ruffinus Quid enim in praesenti saeculo prophetâ gloriosius Pontifice clarius Rege sublimius King and Priest and Prophet are in their several excellencies the Highest powers under Heaven *** In this sence it is easie to understand those expressions often used in Antiquity which might seem to make intrenchment upon the sacredness of Royal prerogatives were not both the piety and sence of the Church sufficiently clear in the issues of her humblest obedience And this is the sence of S. Ignatius that holy Martyr and disciple of the Apostles Diaconi reliquus Clerus unà cum populo Vniverso Militibus Principibus Caesare ipsi Episcopo pareant Let the Deacons and all the Clergy and all the people the Souldiers the Princes and Caesar himself obey the Bishop This is it which S. Ambrose said Sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari Si Regum fulgori compares Principum diademati erit inferius c. This also was acknowledged by the great Constantine that most blessed Prince Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatem vobis dedit de nobis quoque judicandi ideo nos à vobis rectè judicamur Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus judicari viz. saecularibus and in causis simplicis religionis So that good Emperor in his oration to the Nicene Fathers It was a famous contestation that S. Ambrose had with Auxentius the Arian pretending the Emperors command to him to deliver up some certain Churches in his Diocess to the Arians His answer was that Palaces belong'd to the Emperor but Churches to the Bishop and so they did by all the laws of Christendom The like was in the case of S. Athanasius and Constantius the Emperor exactly the same per omnia as it is related by Ruffinus S. Ambrose his sending his Deacon to the Emperor to desire him
to go forth of the Cancelli in his Church at Milaine shews that then the powers were so distinct that they made no intrenchment upon each other * It was no greater power but a more considerable act and higher exercise the forbidding the communion to Theodosius till he had by repentance washed out the blood that stuck upon him ever since the Massacre at Thessalonica It was a wonderful concurrence of piety in the Emperor and resolution and authority in the Bishop But he was not the first that did it For Philip the Emperor was also guided by the Pastoral rod and the severity of the Bishop De hoc traditum est nobis quòd Christianus fuerit in die Paschae i. e. in ipsis vigiliis cùm interesse voluerit communicare mysteriis ab Episcopo loci non priùs esse permissum nisi confiteretur peccata inter poenitentes staret nec ullo modo sibi copiam mysteriorum futuram nisi priùs per poenitentiam culpas quae de eo ferebantur plurimae deluisset The Bishop of the place would not let him communicate till he had wash'd away his sins by repentance And the Emperor did so Ferunt igitur libenter eum quod à Sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse He did it willingly undertaking the impositions laid upon him by the Bishop I doubt not but all the world believes the dispensation of the Sacraments intirely to belong to Ecclesiastical Ministery It was S. Chrysostomes command to his Presbyters to reject all wicked persons from the holy Communion If he be a Captain a Consul or a Crowned King that cometh unworthily forbid him and keep him off thy power is greater than his If thou darest not remove him tell it me I will not suffer it c. And had there never been more error in the managing Church-censures than in the foregoing instances the Church might have exercised censures and all the parts of power that Christ gave her without either scandal or danger to her self or her penitents But when in the very censure of excommunication there is a new ingredient put a great proportion of secular inconveniences and humane interest when excommunications as in the Apostles times they were deliverings over to Satan so now shall be deliverings over to a foreign enemy or the peoples rage as then to be buffeted so now to be deposed or disinteress'd in the allegiance of subjects in these cases excommunication being nothing like that which Christ authorized and no way cooperating toward the end of its institution but to an end of private designs and rebellious interest Bishops have no power of such censures nor is it lawful to inflict them things remaining in that consistence and capacity And thus is that famous saying to be understood reported by S. Thomas to be S. Austin's but is indeed found in the Ordinary Gloss upon Matth. 13. Princeps multitudo non est excommunicanda A Prince or a Commonwealth are not to be excommunicate Thus I have given a short account of the Persons and causes of which Bishops according to Catholick practice did and might take cognizance This use only I make of it Although Christ hath given great authority to his Church in order to the regiment of souls such a power Quae nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari yet it hath its limits and a proper cognizance viz. things spiritual and the emergencies and consequents from those things which Christianity hath introduced de novo and superadded as things totally disparate from the precise interest of the Commonwealth And this I the rather noted to shew how those men would mend themselves that cry down the tyranny as they list to call it of Episcopacy and yet call for the Presbytery *** For the Presbytery does challenge cognizance of all causes whatsoever which are either sins directly or by reduction All crimes which by the Law of God deserve death There they bring in Murders Treasons Witchcrafts Felonies Then the Minor faults they bring in under the title of Scandalous and offensive Nay Quodvis peccatum saith Snecanus to which if we add this consideration that they believe every action of any man to have in it the malignity of a damnable sin there is nothing in the world good or bad vitious or suspicious scandalous or criminal true or imaginary real actions or personal in all which and in all contestations and complaints one party is delinquent either by false accusation or real injury but they comprehend in their vast gripe and then they have power to nullifie all Courts and judicatories besides their own and being for this their cognizance they pretend Divine institution there shall be no causes imperfect in their Consistory no appeal from them but they shall hear and determine with final resolution and it will be sin and therefore punishable to complain of injustice and illegality * If this be confronted but with the pretences of Episcopacy and the modesty of their several demands and the reasonableness and divinity of each vindication examined I suppose were there nothing but Prudential motives to be put into the balance to weigh down this Question the cause would soon be determined and the little finger of Presbytery not only in its exemplary and tried practices but in its dogmatical pretensions is heavier than the loyns nay than the whole body of Episcopacy but it seldom happens otherwise but that they who usurp a power prove tyrants in the execution whereas the issues of a lawful power are fair and moderate SECT XXXVII Forbidding Presbyters to officiate without Episcopal license BUT I must proceed to the more particular instances of Episcopal Jurisdiction The whole power of Ministration both of the Word and Sacraments was in the Bishop by prime authority and in the Presbyters by commission and delegation insomuch that they might not exercise any ordinary ministration without license from the Bishop They had power and capacity by their order to Preach to Minister to Offer to Reconcile and to Baptize They were indeed acts of order but that they might not by the law of the Church exercise any of these acts without license from the Bishop that is an act or issue of jurisdiction and shews the superiority of the Bishop over his Presbyters by the practice of Christendom S. Ignatius hath done very good offices in all the parts of this Question and here also he brings in succour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not lawful without the Bishop viz. without his leave either to baptize or to offer Sacrifice or to make oblation or to keep feasts of charity and a little before speaking of the B. Eucharist and its ministration and having premised a general interdict for doing any thing without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But let that Eucharist saith he be held valid which is celebrated under the Bishop or under him to whom the Bishop shall permit *** * I do not here dispute
the third Council of Toledo complains and makes remedy commanding Vt omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant The same is renewed in the fourth Council of Toledo Noverint autem conditores basilicarum in rebus quas eisdem Ecclesiis conserunt nullam se potestatem habere sed juxta Canonum instituta sicut Ecclesiam ita dotem ejus ad ordinationem Episcopi pertinere These Councils I produce not as Judges but as witnesses in the business for they give concurrent testimony that as the Church it self so the dowry of it too did belong to the Bishops disposition by the Ancient Canons For so the third Council of Toledo calls it antiquam Constitutionem and it self is almost 1100 years old so that still I am precisely within the bounds of the Primitive Church though it be taken in a narrow sence For so it was determined in the great Council of Chalcedon commanding that the goods of the Church should be dispensed by a Clergy steward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 According to the pleasure or sentence of the Bishop SECT XXXIX Forbidding Presbyters to leave their own Diocess or to travel without leave of the Bishop ADDE to this that without the Bishop's dimissory letters Presbyters might not go to another Diocess So it is decreed in the fifteenth Canon of the Apostles under pain of suspension or deposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the censure and that especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he would not return when his Bishop calls him The same is renewed in the Council of Antioch cap. 3. and in the Council of Constantinople in Trullo cap. 17. the censure there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him be deposed that shall without dimissory letters from his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fix himself in the Diocess of another Bishop But with license of his Bishop he may Sacerdotes vel alii Clerici concessione suorum Episcoporum possunt ad alias Ecclesias transmigrare But this is frequently renewed in many other Synodal decrees these may suffice for this instance * But this not leaving the Diocess is not only meant of promotion in another Church but Clergy-men might not travel from City to City without the Bishops license which is not only an argument of his regiment in genere politico but extends it almost to a despotick But so strict was the Primitive Church in preserving the strict tye of duty and Clerical subordination to their Bishop The Council of Laodicea commands a Priest or Clergy-man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to travel without Canonical or dimissory letters And who are to grant these letters is expressed in the next Canon which repeats the same prohibition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Priest or a Clerk must not travel without the command of his Bishop and this prohibition is inserted into the body of the Law De consecrat dist 5. can non oportet which puts in the clause of Neque etiam Laicum but this was beyond the Council The same is in the Council of Agatho The Council of Venice adds a censure that those Clerks should be like persons excommunicate in all those places whither they went without letters of license from their Bishop The same penalty is inflicted by the Council of Epaunum Presbytero vel Diaecono sine Antistitis sui Epistolis ambulanti communionem nullus impendat The first Council of Tourayne in France and the third Council of Orleans attest the self-same power in the Bishop and duty in all his Clergy SECT XL. And the Bishop had power to prefer which of his Clerks he pleased BUT a Coercitive authority makes not a compleat jurisdiction unless it be also remunerative and the Princes of the Nations are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors for it is but half a tye to indear obedience when the Subject only fears quod prodesse non poterit that which cannot profit And therefore the Primitive Church to make the Episcopal Jurisdiction up intire gave power to the Bishop to present the Clerks of his Diocess to the higher Orders and nearer degrees of approximation to himself and the Clerks might not refuse to be so promoted Item placuit ut quicunque Clerici vel Diaconi pro necessitatibus Ecclesiarum non obtemperaverit Episcopis suis volentibus eos ad honorem ampliorem in sua Ecclesia promovere nec illic ministrent in gradu suo unde recedere noluerunt So it is decreed in the African Code They that will not by their Bishop be promoted to a greater honour in the Church must not enjoy what they have already But it is a question of great consideration and worth a strict inquiry in whom the right and power of electing Clerks was resident in the Primitive Church for the right and the power did not always go together and also several Orders had several manners of election Presbyters and inferior Clergy were chosen by the Bishop alone the Bishop by a Synod of Bishops or by their Chapter And lastly because of late strong outcries are made upon several pretensions amongst which the people make the biggest noise though of all their title to election of Clerks be most empty therefore let us consider it upon all its grounds 1. In the Acts of the Apostles which are most certainly the best precedents for all acts of holy Church we find that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in every Church and they passed through Lystra Iconium Antioch and Derbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appointing them Elders * S. Paul chose Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and he says of himself and Titus For this cause I sent thee to Crete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That thou shouldest appoint Presbyters or Bishops be they which they will in every City The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies that the whole action was his For that he ordained them no man questions but he also appointed them and that was saith S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I commanded thee It was therefore an Apostolical ordinance that the Bishop should appoint Presbyters Let there be half so much shown for the people and I will also endeavour to promote their interest *** There is only one pretence of a popular election in Scripture It is of the seven that were set over the widows * But first this was no part of the hierarchy This was no cure of souls This was no divine institution It was in the dispensation of monies It was by command of the Apostles the election was made and they might recede from their own right It was to satisfie the multitude It was to avoid scandal which in the dispensation of monies might easily arise It was in a temporary office It was with such limitations and conditions as the Apostles prescribed them It was out of the number of the 70 that the election was made if we may believe S. Epiphanius so that they
here it is considerable that at this surrogation of S. Matthias the Number of the persons present was but 120 of which eleven were Apostles and 72 were Disciples and Presbyters they make up 83 and then there remains but 37 of the Laity of which many were women which I know not yet whether any man would admit to the election of an Apostle and whether they do or do not the Laity is a very inconsiderable Number if the matter had been to be carried by plurality of voices so that let the worst come that is imaginable the whole business was in effect carried by the Clergy whom in this case we have no reason to suspect to be divided and of a distinct or disagreeing interest * 2. Let this discourse be of what validity it will yet all this whole business was miraculous and extraordinary For though the Apostles named two Candidates yet the holy Ghost chose them by particular revelation And yet for all this it was lawful for S. Peter alone to have done it without casting lots An non licebat ipsi Petro eligere licebat quidem maxime verum id non facit ne cui videretur gratificari Quanquam alioqui non erat particeps Spiritûs For all he had not as yet received the holy Ghost yet he had power himself to have compleated the election So S. Chrysostom So that now if S. Cyprian means more than the presence of the people for suffrage of publick testimony and extends it to a suffrage of formal choice his proofs of the divine authority are invalid there is no such thing can be deduced from thence and then this his complying so much with the people which hath been the fault of many a good man may be reckoned together with his rebaptization But truth is he means no more than suffrage of testimony viz. That he who is to be chosen Bishop be for his good life a man of good fame and approved of before God and all the people and this is all the share they have in their election * And so indeed himself summs up the whole business and tells us of another jus Divinum too Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divinâ Apostolicâ observatione observandum est tenendum quod apud nos quoque fer◠apud Provincias Vniversas tenetur ut ad ordinationes ritè celebrandas ad eam plebem cui Praepositus ordinatur Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quinque conveniant Episcopus deligatur plebe praesente quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit It is most diligently to be observed for there is a Divine tradition and an Apostolical ordinance for it and it is used by us and almost by all Churches that all the Bishops of the Province assembled to the making of right ordinations and that a Bishop be chosen in the face of the people who best know their life and conversation So that the Bishops were to make the formal election the people to give their judgment of approbation in this particular and so much as concern'd the exemplary piety and good life of him that was to be their Bishop Here we see in S. Cyprian is a jus Divinum for the Bishops chusing a Colleague or a Brother-Bishop as much as for the presence of the people and yet the presence was all And howsoever the people were present to give this testimony yet the election was clearly in the Bishops and that by Divine tradition and Apostolical observation saith S. Cyprian And thus it was in all Churches almost In Africa this was and so it continued till after S. Austins time particularly in the choice of Eradius his successor It was so in the Greek Church as S. Chrysostom tells us It was so in Spain as S. Isidore tells us and in many other places that the people should be present and give acclamation and tumultuary approbation but to the formal election of the Clergy made by enumeration of votes and subscription the people never were admitted 5. Although that in times of persecution at first and to comply with the people who were in all respects to be sweetned to make them with easier appetite swallow the bitter pill of persecution and also to make them more obedient to their Bishop if they did though but in a tumult and noise cry him up in his ordination Ne plebs in vita Episcopum non optatum aut contemnat aut oderit fiat minùs religiosa quà m convenit cui non licuerit habere quem voluit for so S. Leo expresses the cause yet the formality and right of proper election was in the Clergy and often so practised without any consent at all or intervening act of the people The right I say was in the Bishops so it was decreed in the Nicene Council 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishop must be appointed or constituted by all the Bishops of the Province 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It must be confirmed and established by the Metropolitan No Presbyters here all this while no people * But the exercise of this power is more clearly seen in the Acts of some Councils where the Fathers degraded some Bishops and themselves appointed others in their Rooms * The Bishops in the Council of Constantinople deposed Marcellus In cujus locum Basilium in Ancyram miserunt They sent Basilius Bishop in his room saith Sozomen Ostendat Bassianus si per Synodum Reverendissimorum Episcoporum consuetâ lege Episcopus Ephesiorum Metropolis est constitutus said the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon Let Bassianus show that he was made Bishop of Ephesus by a Synod of Bishops and according to the accustomed Law The Law I shewed before even the Nicene Canon The Fathers of which Council sent a Synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria to tell them they had deposed Melitius from the office of a Bishop only left him the name but took from him all power Nullum verò omnimodò habere potestatem neque eligendi neque ordinandi c. Neither suffering him to chuse nor to ordain Clerks It seems then that was part of the Episcopal office in ordinary placitos sibi eligere as the Epistle expresses it in the sequel to chuse whom they listed But the Council deposed Melitius and sent Alexander their Bishop and Patriarch to rule the Church again ** And particularly to come home to the case of the present question when Auxentius Bishop of Milaine was dead and the Bishops of the Province and the Clergy of the Church and the people of the City were assembled at the chusing of another the Emperor makes a speech to the Bishops only that they should be careful in their choice So that although the people were present Quibus pro fide religione etiam honor deferendus est as S. Cyprians phrase is To whom respect is to be had and fair complyings to be used so long as they are pious catholick and
obedient yet both the right of electing and solemnity of ordaining was in the Bishops the peoples interest did not arrive to one half of this 6. There are in Antiquity divers precedents of Bishops who chose their own successors it will not be imagined the people will chuse a Bishop over his head and proclaim that they were weary of him In those days they had more piety * Agelius did so he chose Sisinnius and that it may appear it was without the people they came about him and intreated him to chuse Marcian to whom they had been beholding in the time of Valens the Emperor he complied with them and appointed Marcian to be his successor and Sisinnius whom he had first chosen to succeed Marcian Thus did Valerius chuse his successor S. Austin for though the people named him for their Priest and carried him to Valerius to take Orders yet Valerius chose him Bishop And this was usual 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius expresses this case it was ordinary to do so in many Churches 7. The manner of election in many Churches was various for although indeed the Church had commanded it and given power to the Bishops to make the election yet in some times and in some Churches the Presbyters or the Chapter chose one out of themselves S. Hierome says they always did so in Alexandria from S. Mark 's time to Heraclas and Dionysius S. Ambrose says that at the first the Bishop was not by a formal new election promoted but recedente uno sequens ei succedebat As one died so the next senior did succeed him In both these cases no mixture of the peoples votes 8. In the Church of England the people were never admitted to the choice of a Bishop from its first becoming Christian to this very day and therefore to take it from the Clergy in whom it always was by permission of Princes and to interest the people in it is to recede à traditionibus Majorum from the religion of our forefathers and to Innovate in a high proportion 9. In those Churches where the peoples suffrage by way of testimony I mean and approbation did concur with the Synod of Bishops in the choice of a Bishop the people at last according to their usual guise grew hot angry and tumultuous and then were ingaged by divisions in religion to name a Bishop of their own sect and to disgrace one another by publick scandal and contestation and often grew up to Sedition and Murder and therefore although they were never admitted unless where themselves usurped farther than I have declared yet even this was taken from them especially since in tumultuary assemblies they were apt to carry all before them they knew not how to distinguish between power and right they had not well learned to take denial but began to obtrude whom they listed to swell higher like a torrent when they were checked and the soleship of election which by the Ancient Canons was in the Bishops they would have asserted wholly to themselves both in right and execution * I end this with the annotation of Zonaras upon the twelfth Canon of the Laodicean Council Populi suffragiis olim Episcopi eligebantur understand him in the sences above explicated sed cùm multae inde seditiones existerent hinc factum est ut Episcoporum Vniuscujusque provinciae authoritate eligi Episcopum quemque oportere decreverint Patres Of old time Bishops were chosen not without the suffrage of the people for they concurred by way of testimony and acclamation but when this occasioned many seditions and tumults the Fathers decreed that a Bishop should be chosen by the authority of the Bishops of the Province And he adds that in the election of Damasus 137 men were slain and that six hundred examples more of that nature were producible Truth is the Nomination of Bishops in Scripture was in the Apostles alone and though the Kindred of our blessed Saviour were admitted to the choice of Simeon Cleophae the successor of S. James to the Bishoprick of Jerusalem as Eusebius witnesses it was propter singularem honorem an honorary and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our blessed Lord the fountain of all benison to us and for that very reason Simeon himself was chosen Bishop too Yet this was praeter regulam Apostolicam The rule of the Apostles and their precedents were for the sole right of the Bishops to chuse their Colleagues in that Sacred order * And then in descent even before the Nicene Council the people were forbidden to meddle in election for they had no authority by Scripture to chuse by the necessity of times and for the reasons before asserted they were admitted to such a share of the choice as is now folded up in a piece of paper even to a testimonial and yet I deny not but they did often take more as in the case of Nilammon quem cives elegerunt saith the story out of Sozomen they chose him alone though God took away his life before himself would accept of their choice and then they behav'd themselves often times with so much insolency partiality faction sedition cruelty and Pagan baseness that they were quite interdicted it above 1200 years agone So that they had their little in possession but a little while and never had any due and therefore now their request for it is no petition of right but a popular ambition and a snatching at a sword to hew the Church in pieces But I think I need not have troubled my self half so far for they that strive to introduce a popular election would as fain have Episcopacy out as popularity of election let in So that all this of popular election of Bishops may seem superfluous For I consider that if the peoples power of chusing Bishops be founded upon God's law as some men pretend from S. Cyprian not proving the thing from Gods law but Gods law from S. Cyprian then Bishops themselves must be by Gods law For surely God never gave them power to chuse any man into that office which himself hath no way instituted And therefore I suppose these men will desist from their pretence of Divine right of popular election if the Church will recede from her Divine right of Episcopacy But for all their plundering and confounding their bold pretences have made this discourse necessary SECT XLI Bishops only did Vote in Councils and neither Presbyters nor People IF we add to all these foregoing particulars the power of making laws to be in Bishops nothing else can be required to the making up of a spiritual Principality Now as I have shewen that the Bishop of every Diocess did give laws to his own Church for particulars so it is evident that the laws of Provinces and of the Catholick Church were made by conventions of Bishops without the intervening or concurrence of Presbyters or any else for sentence and decision
them but Diocesan and therefore the lesser but conventus Capitularis or however not enough to give evidence of a subscription of Presbyters to so much as a Provincial Council For the guise of Christendom was always otherwise and therefore it was the best argument that the Bishops in the Arian hurry used to acquit themselves from the suspicion of heresie Neque nos sumus Arii sectatores Quî namque fieri potest ut cum simus Episcopi Ario Presbytero auscultemus Bishops never receive determination of any article from Priests but Priests do from Bishops Nam vestrum est eos instruere saith S. Clement speaking of the Bishops office and power over Priests and all the Clergy and all the Diocess eorum est vobis obedire ut Deo cujus legatione fungimini And a little after Audire ergo eum attentius oportet ab ipso suscipere doctrinam fidei monita autem vitae à Presbyteris inquirere Of the Priests we must inquire for rules of good life but of the Bishop receive positions and determinations of faith Against this if it be objected Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari debet That which is of general concernment must also be of general Scrutiny I answer it is true unless where God himself hath intrusted the care of others in a body as he hath in the Bishops and will require the souls of his Diocess at his hand and commanded us to require the Law at their mouths and to follow their faith whom he hath set over us And therefore the determination of Councils pertains to all and is handled by all not in diffusion but in representation For Ecclesia est in Episcopo Episcopus in Ecclesiâ saith S. Cyprian the Church is in the Bishop viz. by representment and the Bishop is in the Church viz. as a Pilot in a ship or a Master in a family or rather as a steward and Guardian to rule in his Masters absence and for this reason the Synod of the Nicene Bishops is called in Eusebius conventus orbis terrarum and by S. Austin consensus totius Ecclesiae not that the whole Church was there present in their several persons but was there represented by the Catholick Bishops and if this representment be not sufficient for obligation to all I see no reason but the Ladies too may vote in Councils for I doubt not but they have souls too But however if this argument were concluding in it self yet it loses its force in England where the Clergy are bound by Laws of Parliament and yet in the capacity of Clergy-men are allowed to chuse neither Procurators to represent us as Clergy nor Knights of the Shire to represent us as Commons In conclusion of this I say to the Presbyters as S. Ambrose said of the Lay-Judges whom the Arians would have brought to judge in Council it was an old heretical trick Veniant planè si qui sunt ad Ecclesiam audiant cum populo non ut quisquam Judex resideat sed unusquisque de suo affectu habeat examen eligat quem sequatur So may Presbyters be present so they may judge not for others but for themselves And so may the people be present and anciently were so and therefore Councils were always kept in open Churches ubi populus judicat not for others but for themselves not by external sentence but internal conviction so S. Ambrose expounds himself in the forecited allegation There is no considerable objection against this discourse but that of the first Council of Jerusalem where the Apostles and Elders did meet together to determine of the question of circumcision For although in the story of celebration of it we find no man giving sentence but Peter and James yet in Acts 16. they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees judged by the Apostles and Elders But first in this the difficulty is the less because Presbyter was a general word for all that were not of the number of the twelve Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Doctors And then secondly it is none at all because Paul and Barnabas are signally and by name reckoned as present in the Synod and one of them Prolocutor or else both So that such Presbyters may well define in such conventual assemblies 3. If yet there were any difficulty latent in the story yet the Catholick practice of Gods Church is certainly the best expositor of such places where there either is any difficulty or where any is pretended And of this I have already given account * I remember also that this place is pretended for the peoples power of voicing in Councils It is a pretty pageant only that it is against the Catholick practice of the Church against the exigence of Scripture which bids us require the law at the mouth of our spiritual Rulers against the gravity of such assemblies for it would force them to be tumultuous and at the best are the worst of Sanctions as being issues of popularity and to summe up all it is no way authorized by this first copy of Christian Councils The pretence is in the Synodal letter written in the name of the Apostles and Elders and Brethren that is says Geta The Apostles and Presbyters and People But why not Brethren that is all the Deacons and Evangelists and Helpers in Government and Ministers of the Churches There is nothing either in words or circumstances to contradict this If it be asked who then are meant by Elders if by Brethren S. Luke understands these Church-officers I answer that here is such variety that although I am not certain which officers he precisely comprehends under the distinct titles of Elders and Brethren yet here are enough to furnish both with variety and yet neither to admit meer Presbyters in the present acceptation of the word nor yet the Laity to a decision of the question nor authorising the decretal For besides the twelve Apostles there were Apostolical men which were Presbyters and something more as Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Evangelists and Pastors besides which might furnish out the last appellative sufficiently But however without any further trouble it is evident that this word Brethren does not distinguish the Laity from the Clergy Now when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles Men and brethren what shall we do Judas and Silas who were Apostolical men are called in Scripture chief men among the brethren But this is too known to need a contestation I only insert the saying of Basilius the Emperor in the Eighth Synod De vobis autem Laicis tam qui in dignitatibus quà m qui absolutè versamini quid amplius dicam non habeo quà m quòd nullo modo vobis licet de Ecclesiasticis causis sermonem movere neque penitùs resistere integritati Ecclesiae universali Synodo adversari Lay-men says the Emperor must by no means
Pontifical book Hic titulos in urbe Româ divisit Presbyteris septem Diacons ordinavit qui custodirent Episcopum praedicantem propter stylum veritatis He divided the Parishes or titles in the City of Rome to Presbyters The same also is by Damasus reported of Dionysius in his life Hic Presbyteris Ecclesias divisit coemiteria parochiásque dioeceses constituit Marcellus increased the number in the year 305. Hic fecit coemiterium viâ Salariâ 25 Titulos in urbe Roma constituit quasi dioeceses propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum qui convertebantur ex Paganis propter sepulturas Martyrum He made a Sepulture or coemitery for the burial of Martyrs and appointed 25 Titles or Parishes but he adds quasi Dioeceses as it had been Dioâ—esses that is distinct and limited to Presbyters as Diocesses were to Bishops and the use of Parishes which he subjoyns clears the business for he appointed them only propter baptismum poenitentiam multorum sepulturas for baptism and penance and burial for as yet there was no preaching in Parishes but in the Mother-Church Thus it was in the West * But in Aegypt we find Parishes divided something sooner than the earliest of these for Eusebius reports out of Philo that the Christians in S. Mark 's time had several Churches in Alexandria Etiam de Ecclesiis quae apud eos sunt ita dicit Est autem in singulis locis consecrata orationi domus c. But even before this there were Bishops for in Rome there were four Bishops before any division of Parishes though S. Peter be reckoned for none And before Parishes were divided in Alexandria S. Mark himself who did it was the Bishop and before that time S. James was Bishop of Jerusalem and in divers other places where Bishops were there were no distinct Parishes of a while after Evaristus's timâ— for when Dionysius had assigned Presbyters to several Parishes he writes of it to Severus Bishop of Corduba and desires him to do so too in his Diocess as appears in his Epistle to him * For indeed necessity required it when the Christians multiplied and grew to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Cornelius called the Roman Christians a great and an innumerable people and did implere omnia as Tertullians phrase is filled all places and publick and great assemblies drew danger upon themselves and increased jealousies in others and their publick offices could not be performed with so diffused and particular advantage then they were forced to divide congregations and assigned several Presbyters to their cure in subordination to the Bishop and so we see the Elder Christianity grew the more Parishes there were At first in Rome there were none Evaristus made seven Dionysius made some more and Marcellus added 25 and in Optatus's time there were 40. Well then The case is thus Parishes were not divided at first therefore to be sure they were not of Divine institution Therefore it is no divine institution that a Presbyter should be fixt upon a Parish therefore also a Parish is not by Christ's ordinance an independant body for by Christs ordinance there was no such thing at all neither absolute nor in dependance neither and then for the main issue since Bishops were before Parishes in the present sence the Bishops in that sence could not be Parochial * But which was first of a private congregation or a Diocess If a private congregation then a Bishop was at first fixt in a private congregation and so was a Parochial Bishop If a Diocess was first then the Question will be how a Diocess could be without Parishes for what is a Diocess but a jurisdiction over many Parishes * I answer it is true that Diocess and Parish are words used now in contradiction And now a Diocess is nothing but the multiplication of many Parishes Sed non fuit sic ab initio For at first a Diocess was the City and the Regio suburbicaria the neighbouring towns in which there was no distinction of Parishes That which was a Diocess in the secular sence that is a particular Province or division of secular prefecture that was the assignation of a Bishops charge Ephesus Smyrna Pergamus Laodicea were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heads of the Diocess saith Pliny meaning in respect of secular jurisdiction so they were in Ecclesiastical regiment And it was so upon great reason for when the regiment of the Church was extended just so as the regiment of the Commonwealth it was of less suspicion to the secular power while the Church regiment was just fixt together with the political as if of purpose to shew their mutual consistence and its own subordination ** And besides this there was in it a necessity for the subjects of another Province or Diocess could not either safely or conveniently meet where the duty of the Commonwealth did not ingage them but being all of one prefecture and Diocess the necessity of publick meetings in order to the Commonwealth would be fair opportunity for the advancement of their Christendom And this which at first was a necessity in this case grew to be a law in all by the sanction of the Council of Chalcedon and of Constantinople in Trullo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the order of the Church follow the order and guise of the Commonwealth viz. in her regiment and prefecture * But in the modern sence of this division a Bishops charge was neither a Parish nor a Diocess as they are taken in relation but a Bishop had the supreme care of all the Christians which he by himself or his Presbyters had converted and he also had the charge of endeavouring the conversion of all the Country So that although he had not all the Diocess actually in communion and subjection yet his charge his Diocess was so much Just as it was with the Apostles to whom Christ gave all the world for a Diocess yet at first they had but a small congregation that did actually obey them And now to the Question Which was first a particular congregation or a Diocess I answer that a Diocess was first that is the Apostles had a charge before they had a congregation of converts And S. Mark was sent Bishop to Alexandria by S. Peter before any were converted * But ordinarily the Apostles when they had converted a City or Nation then fixt Bishops upon their charge and there indeed the particular congregation was before the Bishop's taking of the Diocess But then this City or Nation although it was not the Bishops Diocess before it was a particular congregation yet it was part of the Apostles Diocess and this they concredited to the Bishops respectively S. Paul was ordained by the prophets at Antioch Apostle of the Uncircumcision All the Gentiles was his Diocess and even of those places he then received power which as yet he had not converted So that absolutely a diocess was
us And first Antiquity taught us it was simply necessary even to the being and constitution of a Church That runs high but we must follow our leaders S. Ignatius is express in this question Qui intra altare est mundus est quare obtemperat Episcopo sacerdotibus Qui vero foris est hic is est qui sine Episcopo Sacerdote Diacono quicquam agit ejusmodi inquinatam habet conscientiam infideli deterior est He that is within the Altar that is within the communion of the Church he is pure for he obeys the Bishop and the Priests But he that is without that is does any thing without his Bishop and the Clergy he hath a filthy conscience and is worse than an infidel Necesse itaque est quicquid facitis ut sine Episcopo nihil faciatis It is necessary that what ever ye doe ye be sure to do nothing without the Bishop Quid enim aliud est episcopus c. For what else is a Bishop but he that is greater than all power So that the obeying the Bishop is the necessary condition of a Christian and Catholick communion he that does not is worse than an Infidel The same also he affirms again Quotquot enim Christi sunt partium Episcopi qui vero ab illo declinant cum maledictis communionem amplectuntur hi cum illis excidentur All they that are on Christs side are on the Bishops side but they that communicate with accursed Schismaticks shall be cut off with them If then we will be Christs servants we must be obedient and subordinate to the Bishop It is the condition of Christianity We are not Christians else So is the intimation of S. Ignatius As full and pertinent is the peremptory resolution of S. Cyprian in that admirable epistle of his ad Lapsos where after he had spoken how Christ instituted the honour of Episcopacy in concrediting the Keys to S. Peter and the other Apostles Inde saith he per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem Praepositos gubernetur Hence is it that by several successions of Bishops the Church is continued so that the Church hath its being or constitution by Bishops and every act of Ecclesiastical regiment is to be disposed by them Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit miror c. Since therefore this is so established by the Law of God I wonder any man should question it c. And therefore as in all buildings the foundation being gone the fabrick falls so if ye take away Bishops the Church must ask a writing of divorce from God for it can no longer be called a Church This account we have from S. Cyprian and he reenforces again upon the same charge in his Epistle ad Florentium Pupianum where he makes a Bishop to be ingredient into the definition of a Church Ecclesia est plebs sacerdoti adunata pastori suo Grex adhaerens The Church is a flock adhering to its Pastor and a people united to their Bishop for that so he means by Sacerdos appears in the words subjoyned Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo si qui Cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacerdotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latenter apud quosdam communicare se credunt c. As a Bishop is in the Church so the Church is in the Bishop and he that does not communicate with the Bishop is not in the Church and therefore they vainly flatter themselves that think their case fair and good if they communicate in conventicles and forsake their Bishop And for this cause the holy Primitives were so confident and zealous for a Bishop that they would rather expose themselves and all their tribes to a persecution than to the greater misery the want of Bishops Fulgentius tells an excellent story to this purpose When Frasamund King of Byzac in Africa had made an edict that no more Bishops should be consecrate to this purpose that the Catholick faith might expire so he was sure it would if this device were perfected ut arescentibus truncis absque palmitibus omnes Ecclesiae desolarentur the good Bishops of the province met together in a Council and having considered of the command of the Tyrant Sacra turba Pontificum qui remanserant communicato inter se consilio definierunt adversus praeceptum Regis in omnibus locis celebrare ordinationes Pontificum cogitantes aut regis iracundiam si qua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinati in suis plebibus viverent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coronandos etiam fidei confessione quos dignos inveniebant promotione It was full of bravery and Christian sprite The Bishops resolved for all the edict against new ordination of Bishops to obey God rather than man and to consecrate Bishops in all places hoping the King would be appeased or if not yet those whom they thought worthy of a Mitre were in a fair disposition to receive a Crown of Martyrdome They did so Fit repente communis assumptio and they all strived who should be first and thought a blessing would outstrip the hindmost They were sure they might go to heaven though persecuted under the conduct of a Bishop they knew without him the ordinary passage was obstructed Pius the first Bishop of Rome and Martyr speaking of them that calumniate and disgrace their Bishops endeavouring to make them infamous they add saith he evil to evil and grow worse non intelligentes quod Ecclesia Dei in Sacerdotibus consistit crescit in templum Dei Not considering that the Church of God doth consist or is establisht in Bishops and grows up to a holy Temple To him I am most willing to add S. Hierome because he is often obtruded in defiance of the cause Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet The safety of the Church depends upon the Bishops dignity SECT XLVI For they are schismaticks that separate from their Bishop THE Reason which S. Hierome gives presses this business to a further particular For if an eminent dignity and an unmatchable power be not given to him tot efficicientur schismata quot Sacerdotes So that he makes Bishops therefore necessary because without them the Unity of a Church cannot be preserved and we know that unity and being are of equal extent and if the unity of the Church depends upon the Bishop then where there is no Bishop no pretence to a Church and therefore to separate from the Bishop makes a man at least a Schismatick For unity which the Fathers press so often they make to be dependant on the Bishop Nihil sit in vobis quod possit vos
Christ said Non designando officium but Sortem not their duty but their lot intimating that their future condition should not be honorary but full of trouble not advanc'd but persecuted But I had rather insist on the first answer in which I desire it be remembred that I said seeking temporal Principality to be forbidden the Apostles as an Appendix to the office of an Apostle For in other capacities Bishops are as receptive of honour and temporal principalities as other men Bishops ut sic are not secular Princes must not seek for it But some secular Princes may be Bishops as in Germany and in other places to this day they are For it is as unlawful for a Bishop to have any Land as to have a Country and a single Acre is no more due to the Order than a Province but both these may be conjunct in the same person though still by vertue of Christ's precept the functions and capacities must be distinguished according to the saying of Synesius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To confound and intermix the Kingdom and the Priesthood is to joyn things incompossible and inconsistent Inconsistent I say not in person but absolutely discrepant in function 3. Consider we that Saint Peter when he speaks of the dutious subordination of Sarah to her Husband Abraham he propounds her as an example to all married women in these words She obeyed Abraham and called him Lord why was this spoken to Christian women but that they should do so too And is it imaginable that such an honourable compellation as Christ allows every woman to give to her Husband a Mechanick a hard-handed Artisan he would forbid to those eminent Pillars of his Church those Lights of Christendom whom he really indued with a plenitude of power for the Regiment of the Catholick Church Credat Apella 4. Pastor and Father are as honourable titles as any They are honourable in Scripture Honour thy Father c. Thy Father in all sences They are also made sacred by being the appellatives of Kings and Bishops and that not only in secular addresses but even in holy Scripture as is known Add to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used in Scripture for the Prelates of the Church and I am certain that Duke and Captain Rulers and Commanders are but just the same in English that the other are in Greek and the least of these is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Lord. And then if we consider that since Christ erected a spiritual Regiment and us'd words of secular honour to express it as in the instances above although Christ did interdict a secular principality yet he forbad not a secular title He us'd many himself 5. The voice of the Spouse the holy Church hath alwayes expressed their honourable estimate in reverential Compellations and Epithets of honour to their Bishops and have taught us so to do * Bishops were called Principes Ecclesiarum Princes of the Churches I had occasion to instance it in the question of jurisdiction Indeed the third Councel of Carthage forbad the Bishop of Carthage to be called Princeps Sacerdotum or summus sacerdos or aliquid hujusmodi but only primae sedis Episcopus I know not what their meaning was unless they would dictate a lesson of humility to their Primate that he might remember the principality not to be so much in his person as in the See for he might be called Bishop of the prime See But whatsoever fancy they had at Carthage I am sure it was a guise of Christendom not to speak of Bishops sine praefatione honoris but with honourable mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To our most blessed Lord. So the Letters were superscribed to Julius Bishop of Rome from some of his Brethren in Sozomen Let no man speak Untruths of me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nor of my Lords the Bishops said Saint Gregory Nazianzen The Synodical book of the Councel of Constantinople is inscribed Dominis Reverendissimis ac piissimis Fratribus ac Collegis Damaso Ambrosio c. To our most Reverend Lords and holy Brethren c. And the Councel of Illyricum sending their Synodal letters to the Bishops of Asia by Bishop Elpidius Haec pluribus say they persequi non est visum quòd miserimus unum ex omnibus Dominum Collegam nostrum Elpidium qui cognosceret esset ne sicut dictum fuerat à Domino Collegâ nostro Eustathio Our Lord and Brother Elpidius Our Lord and Brother Eustathius * The Oration in the Councel of Epaunum begins thus Quod praecipientibus tantis Dominis meis ministerium proferendi sermonis assumo c. The Prolocutor took that office on him at the command of so many Great Lords the Bishops * When the Church of Spain became Catholick and abjured the Arian heresie King Recaredus in the third Councel of Toledo made a speech to the Bishops Non incognitum reor esse vobis Reverendissimi Sacerdotes c. Non credimus vestram latere Sanctitatem c. Vestra Cognovit Beatitudo c. Venerandi Patres c. And these often Your Holiness your Blessedness Most Reverend Venerable Fathers Those were the Addresses the King made to the Fathers of the Synod Thus it was when Spain grew Catholick but not such a Speech to be found in all the Arian Records They amongst them used but little Reverence to their Bishops But the instances of this kind are innumerable Nothing more ordinary in Antiquity than to speak of Bishops with the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domine verè Sancte suscipiende Papa So Saint Hierom a Presbyter to Saint Austin a Bishop Secundùm enim honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopatus Presbyteria major est saith Saint Austin Episcopacy is greater than the office and dignity of a Presbyter according to the Titles of Honour which the custom of the Church hath introduced But I shall sum up these particulars in a total which is thus expressed by Saint Chrysostom Haeretici à Diabolo Honorum vocabula Episcopis non dare didicerunt Hereticks have learned of the Devil not to give due titles of honour to Bishops The good Patriarch was angry surely when he said so * For my own particular I am confident that my Lords the Bishops do so undervalue any fastuous or pompous title that were not the duty of their people in it they would as easily reject them as it is our duty piously to use them But if they still desire appellatives of honour we must give them they are their due if they desire them not they deserve them much more So that either for their humility or however for their works sake we must highly honour them that have the rule over us It is the precept of S. Paul and S. Cyprian observing how curious our blessed Saviour was that he might give honour to the Priests of the Jews even then
praesumptionem malignantium cohibere It is no new thing for Bishops to be Counsellors to Princes saith he their wisdom and piety that enables them for a Bishoprick proclaims them fit Instruments to promote the publick tranquillity of the Commonwealth They know how to comply with oppressed people to advance designs of peace and publick security It is their office to instruct the King to righteousness by their sanctity to be a rule to the Court and to diffuse their exemplary piety over the body of the Kingdom to mix influences of Religion with designs of State to make them have as much of the Dove as of the Serpent and by the advantage of their Religious authority to restrain the malignity of accursed people in whom any image of a God or of Religion is remaining * He proceeds in the discourse and brings the examples of Samuel Isaiah Elisha Jojada Zacharias who were Priests and Prophets respectively and yet imployed in Princes Courts and Councels of Kings and adds this Vnum noveritis quia nisi familiares Consiliarii Regis essent Episcopi supra dorsum Ecclesiae hodiè fabricarent peccatores immaniter ac intolerabiliter opprimeret Clerum praesumptio Laicalis That 's most true If the Church had not the advantage of additional honorary imployments the plowers would plow upon the Churches back and make long furrows * The whole Epistle is worth transcribing but I shall content my self with this summary of the advantages which are acquired both to Policy and Religion by the imployment of Bishops in Princes Courts Istis mediantibis mansuescit circa simplices judiciarius rigor admittitur clamor pauperum Ecclesiarum dignitas erigitur relevatur pauperum indigentia firmatur in clero libertas pax in populis in monasteriis quies justitia liberè exercetur superbia opprimitur augetur Laicorum devotio religio fovetur diriguntur judicia c. When pious Bishops are imployed in Princes Councils then the rigour of the Laws is abated equity introduced the cry of the poor is heard their necessities are made known the liberties of the Church are conserved the peace of Kingdoms laboured for pride is depressed Religion increaseth the devotion of the Laity multiplies and Tribunals are made just and incorrupt and merciful Thus far Petrus Blesensis * These are the effects which though perhaps they do not alwayes fall out yet these things may in expectation of reason be looked for from the Clergy their principles and calling promises all this Et quia in Ecclesiâ magis lex est ubi Dominus legis timetur meliùs dicit apud Dei Ministros agere causam Faciliùs enim Dei timore sententiam legis veram promunt saith Saint Ambrose and therefore certainly the fairest reason in the world that they be imployed But if personal defaillance be thought reasonable to disimploy the whole calling then neither Clergy nor Laity should ever serve a Prince And now we are easily driven into an understanding of that saying of Saint Paul No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life For although this be spoken of all Christian people and concerns the Laity in their proportion as much as the Clergy yet nor one nor the other is interdicted any thing that is not a direct hinderance to their own precise duty of Christianity And such things must be par'd away from the Fringes of the Laity as well as the long Robe of the Clergy But if we should consider how little we have now left for the imployment of a Bishop I am afraid a Bishop would scarce seem to be a necessary function so far would it be from being hindered by the collateral intervening of a Lay-judicature I need not instance in any particulars for if the judging matters and questions of Religion be not left alone to them they may well be put into a temporal imployment to preserve them from suspicion of doing nothing I have now done with this only intreating this to be considered Is not the King fons utriusque jurisdictionis In all the sences of Common-law and external compulsory he is But if so then why may not the King as well make Clergy-Judges as Lay-Delegates For to be sure if there be an incapacity in the Clergy of medling with secular affairs there is the same at least in the Laity of medling with Church affairs For if the Clergy be above the affairs of the world then the Laity are under the affairs of the Church or else if the Clergy be incapable of Lay-business because it is of a different and disparate nature from the Church does not the same argument exclude the Laity from intervening in Church affairs For the Church differs no more from the Commonwealth than the Commonwealth differs from the Church And now after all this suppose a King should command a Bishop to go on Embassy to a forreign Prince to be a Commissioner in a treaty of pacification if the Bishop refuse did he do the duty of a Subject If yea I wonder what subjection that is which a Bishop ows to his Prince when he shall not be bound to obey him in any thing but the saying and doing of his office to which he is obliged whether the Prince commands him yea or no. But if no then the Bishop was tyed to go and then the calling makes him no way incapable of such imployment for no man can be bound to do a sin SECT L. And therefore were inforced to delegate the power and put others in substitution BUT then did not this imployment when the occasions were great and extraordinary force the Bishops to a temporary absence And what remedy was there for that For the Church is not to be left destitute that 's agreed on by all the Canons They must not be like the Sicilian Bishops whom Petrus Blesensis complains of that attended the Court and never visited their Churches or took care either of the cure of souls or of the Church possessions What then must be done The Bishops in such cases may give delegation of their power and offices to others though now adayes they are complain'd of for their care I say for their care For if they may intervene in secular affairs they may sometimes be absent and then they must delegate their power or leave the Church without a Curate *** But for this matter the account need not be long For since I have proved that the whole Diocess is in cura Episcopali and for all of it he is responsive to God Almighty and yet that instant necessity and the publick act of Christendom hath ratified it that Bishops have delegated to Presbyters so many parts of the Bishops charge as there are Parishes in his Diocess 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is pretended for delegation of Episcopal charge is no less than the act of all Christendom For it is evident at first Presbyters had no distinct cure at all but were in common assistant to the
Bishop and were his Emissaries for the gaining souls in City or Suburbs But when the Bishops divided Parishes and fixt the Presbyters upon a cure so many Parishes as they distinguished so many delegations they made And these we all believe to be good both in Law and Conscience For the Bishop per omnes divinos ordines propriae hierarchiae exercet mysteria saith Saint Denis he does not do the offices of his Order by himself only but by others also for all the inferiour Orders do so operate as by them he does his proper offices * But besides this grand act of the Bishops first and then of all Christendom in consent we have fair precedent in Saint Paul for he made delegation of a power to the Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous person It was a plain delegation for he commanded them to do it and gave them his own spirit that is his own authority and indeed without it I scarce find how the Delinquent should have been delivered over to Satan in the sence of the Apostolick Church that is to be buffetted for that was a miraculous appendix of power Apostolick * When Saint Paul sent for Timothy from Ephesus he sent Tychicus to be his Vicar Do thy diligence to come unto me shortly for Demas hath forsaken me c. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus Here was an express delegation of the power of jurisdiction to Tychicus who for the time was Curate to Saint Timothy Epaphroditus for a while attended on Saint Paul although he was then Bishop of Philippi and either Saint Paul or Epaphroditus appointed one in substitution or the Church was relinquished for he was most certainly non-resident * Thus also we find that Saint Ignatius did delegate his power to the Presbyters in his voyage to his Martyrdom Presbyteri pascite gregem qui inter vos est donec Deus designaverit eum qui principatum in vobis habiturus est Ye Presbyters do you feed the Flock till God shall design you a Bishop Till then Therefore it was but a delegate power it could not else have expired in the presence of a Superiour To this purpose is that of the Laodicean Council Non oportet Presbyteros ante ingressum Episcopi ingredi sedere in tribunalibus nisi fortè aut aegrotet Episcopus aut in peregrinis eum esse constiterit Presbyters must not sit in Consistory without the Bishop unless the Bishop be sick or absent So that it seems what the Bishop does when he is in his Church that may be committed to others in his absence And to this purpose Saint Cyprian sent a plain Commission to his Presbyters Fretus ergo dilectione religione vostrâ his literis hortor mando ut vos Vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quae adiministratio religiosa deposcit I intreat and command you that you do my office in the administration of the affairs of the Church and another time he put Herculanus and Caldonius two of his Suffragans together with Rogatianus and Numidicus two Priests in substitution for the excommunicating Foelicissimus and four more Cùm ego vos pro me Vicarios miserim So it was just in the case of Hierocles Bishop of Alexandria and Melitius his Surrogate in Epiphanius Videbatur autem Melitius praemenire c. ut qui secundum locum habebat post Petrum in Archiepiscopatu velut adjuvandi ejus gratiâ sub ipso existens sub ipso Ecclesiastica curans He did Church offices under and for Hierocles And I could never find any Canon or personal declamatory clause in any Council or Primitive Father against a Bishops giving more or less of his jurisdiction by way of delegation * Hitherto also may be referr'd that when the goods of all the Church which then were of a perplex and busie dispensation were all in the Bishops hand as part of the Episcopal function yet that part of the Bishops office the Bishop by order of the Council of Chalcedon might delegate to a Steward provided he were a Clergy-man and upon this intimation and decree of Chalcedon the Fathers in the Council of Sevill forbad any Lay-men to be Stewards for the Church Elegimus ut unusquisque nostrûm secundùm Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat But the reason extends the Canon further Indecorum est enim laicum Vicarium esse Episcopi Saeculares in Ecclesiâ judicare Vicars of Bishops the Canon allows only forbids Lay-men to be Vicars In uno enim eodemque officio non decet dispar professio quod etiam in divinâ lege prohibetur c. In one and the same office the Law of God forbids to joyn men of disparate capacities Then this would be considered For the Canon pretends Scripture Precepts of Fathers and Tradition of Antiquity for its Sanction SECT LI. But they were ever Clergy-men for there never was any Lay-Elders in any Church-office heard of in the Church FOR although Antiquity approves of Episcopal delegations of their power to their Vicars yet these Vicars and Delegates must be Priests at least Melitius was a Biship and yet the Chancellor of Hierocles Patriarch of Alexandria so were Herculanus and Caldonius to Saint Cyprian But they never delegated to any Lay-man any part of their Episcopal power precisely Of their lay-power or the cognisance of secular causes of the people I find one delegation made to some Gentlemen of the Laity by Sylvanus Bishop of Troas when his Clerks grew covetous he cur'd their itch of Gold by trusting men of another profession so to shame them into justice and contempt of money Si quis autem Episcopus posthâc Ecclesiasticam rem aut Laicali procuratione administrandam elegerit non solùm à Christo de rebus Pauperum judicatur reus sed etiam Concilio manebit obnoxius If any Bishop shall hereafter concredit any Church affairs to Lay-Administration he shall be responsive to Christ and in danger of the Council But the Thing was of more ancient constitution For in that Epistle which goes under the Name of Saint Clement which is most certainly very ancient whoever was the Author of it it is decreed Si qui ex Fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores saeculi non judicentur sed apud Presbyteros Ecclesiae quicquid illud est dirimatur If Christian people have causes of difference and judicial contestation let it be ended before the Priests For so Saint Clement expounds Presbyteros in the same Epistle reckoning it as a part of the sacred Hierarchy To this or some parallel constitution Saint Hierom relates saying that Priests from the beginning were appointed Judges of causes He expounds his meaning to be of such Priests as were also Bishops and they were Judges ab initio from the beginning saith S. Hierom So that the saying of the Father may no way prejudge
elevation of it must of themselves fall to the ground it will also follow that it is Christ's body only in a mystical spiritual and sacramental manner 4. Secondly By what Argument will it so much as probably be concluded that these words This is my body should be the words effective of conversion and consecration That Christ used these words is true and so he used all the other but did not tell which were the consecrating words nor appoint them to use those words but to do the thing and so to remember and represent his death And therefore the form and rites of consecration and ministeries are in the power of the Church where Christ's Command does not intervene as appears in all the external ministeries of Religion in Baptism Confirmation Penance Ordination c. And for the form of consecration of the Eucharist S. Basil affirms that it is not delivered to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The words of Invocation in the manifestation or opening the Eucharistical bread and cup of blessing which of all the Saints hath left us for we are not content with these which the Apostles and the Evangelists mention but before and after we say other things which have great efficacy to this mystery But it is more material which Saint Gregory affirms concerning the Apostles Mos Apostolorum fuit ut ad ipsam solummodò orationem Dominicam oblationis hostiam consecrarent The Apostles consecrated the Eucharist only by saying the Lords Prayer To which I add this consideration that it is certain Christ interposed no Command in this case nor the Apostles neither did they for ought appears intend the recitation of those words to be the Sacramental consecration and operative of the change because themselves recited several forms of institution in Saint Matthew and Saint Mark for one and Saint Luke and Saint Paul for the other in the matter of the Chalice especially and by this difference declared there is no necessity of one and therefore no efficacy in any as to this purpose 5. Thirdly If they make these words to signifie properly and not figuratively then it is a declaration of something already in being and not effective of any thing after it For else est does not signifie is but it shall be because the conversion is future to the pronunciation and by the confession of the Roman Doctors the bread is not transubstantiated till the um in meum be quite out till the last syllable be spoken But yet I suppose they cannot shew an example or reason or precedent or Grammar or any thing for it that est should be an active word And they may remember how confidently they use to argue against them that affirm men to be justified by a fiducia and perswasion that their sins are pardoned saying that saith must suppose the thing done or their belief is false and if it be done before then to believe it does not do it at all because it is done already The case is here the same They affirm that it is made Christ's body by saying it is Christ's body but their saying so must suppose the thing done or else their saying so is false and if it be done before then to say it does not do it at all because it is done already 6. Fourthly When our blessed Lord took bread he gave thanks said Saint Luke and Saint Paul he blessed it said Saint Matthew and Saint Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making it Eucharistical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was consecrating or making it holy it was common bread unholy when he blessed it and made it Eucharistical for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word in Justin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread and wine food made Eucharistical or on which Christ had given thanks Eucharistia sanguinis corporis Christi so Irenaeus and others and Saint Paul does promiscuously use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the same place the Vulgar Latin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by benedictionem and therefore Saint Paul calls it the cup of blessing and in this very place of Saint Matthew Saint Basil reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in this following the old Greek Copies who so read this place or else by interpretation so rendring it as being the same and on the other side Saint Cyprian renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used in the blessing the Chalice by benedixit Against this Smiglecius the Jesuite with some little scorn sayes it is very absurd to say that Christ gave thanks to the bread and so it should be if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks were all one But in this he shewed his anger or want of skill not knowing or not remembring that the Hebrews and Hellenist Jews love abbreviature of speech and in the Epistle to the Hebrews Saint Paul uses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to appease or propitiate our sins instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propitiate or appease God concerning our sins and so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only that by this means God also makes the bread holy blessed and eucharistical Now I demand what did Christ's blessing effect upon the Bread and the Chalice any thing or nothing If no change was consequent it was an ineffective blessing a blessing that blessed not if any change was consequent it was a blessing of the thing in order to what was intended that is that it might be Eucharistical and then the following words this is my body this is the blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in my blood were as Cabasilas affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of history and narration and so the Syriack Interpreter puts them together in the place of S. Matthew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blessing and giving of thanks when he did bless it he made it Eucharistical 7. Fifthly The Greek Church universally taught that the Consecration was made by the prayers of the ministring man Justin Martyr calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nourishment made Eucharistical by prayer and Origen calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread made a body a holy thing by prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Damascen by the invocation and illumination of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are changed into the body and blood of Christ. But for the Greek Church the case is evident and confessed For the ancient Latine Church Saint Hierom reproving certain pert Deacons for insulting over Priests uses this expression for the honour of Priests above the other Ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur by their prayers the body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament
esteem our selves oblig'd to warn the People of their danger and to depart from it and call upon them to stand upon the wayes and ask after the old paths and walk in them lest they partake of that curse which is threatned by God to them who remove the ancient Land-marks which our Fathers in Christ have set for us Now that the Church of Rome cannot pretend that all which she imposes is Primitive and Apostolick appears in this That in the Church of Rome there is pretence made to a power not only of declaring new Articles of faith but of making new Symbols or Creeds and imposing them as of necessity to Salvation Which thing is evident in the Bull of Pope Leo the tenth against Martyn Luther in which amongst other things he is condemn'd for saying It is certain that it is not in the power of the Church or Pope to constitute Articles of Faith We need not add that this power is attributed to the Bishops of Rome by Turrecremata Augustinus Triumphus de Ancona Petrus de Ancorano and the Famous Abbot of Panormo that the Pope cannot only make new Creeds but new Articles of Faith that he can make that of necessity to be believ'd which before never was necessary that he is the measure and rule and the very notice of all credibilities That the Canon Law is the Divine Law and whatever Law the Pope promulges God whose Vicar he is is understood to be the Promulger That the souls of Men are in the hands of the Pope and that in his arbitration Religion doth consist which are the very words of Hostiensis and Ferdinandus ab Inciso who were Casuists and Doctors of Law of great authority amongst them and renown The thing it self is not of dubioâ—â— disputation amongst them but actually practis'd in the greatest Instances as is to be seen in the Bull of Pius the fourth at the end of the Council of Trent by which all Ecclesiasticks are not only bound to swear to all the Articles of the Council of Trent for the present and for the future but they are put into a new Symbol or Creed and they are corroborated by the same decretory clauses that are us'd in the Creed of Athanasius That this is the true Catholick Faith and that without this no Man can be saved Now since it cannot be imagined that this power to which they pretend should never have been reduc'd to act and that it is not credible they should publish so invidious and ill-sounding Doctrine to no purpose and to serve no end it may without further evidence be believed by all discerning persons that they have need of this Doctrine or it would not have been taught and that consequently without more ado it may be concluded that some of their Articles are parts of this new faith and that they can therefore in no sence be Apostolical unless their being Roman makes them so To this may be added another consideration not much less material that besides what Eckius told the Elector of Bavaria that the Doctrines of Luther might be overthrown by the Fathers though not by Scripture they have also many gripes of Conscience concerning the Fathers themselves that they are not right on their side and of this they have given but too much demonstration by their Expurgatory indices The Serpent by being so curious a defender of his head shews where his danger is and by what he can most readily be destroyed But besides their innumerable corruptings of the Fathers Writings their thrusting in that which was spurious and like Pharaoh killing the legitimate Sons of Israel though in this they have done very much of their work and made the Testimonies of the Fathers to be a record infinitely worse than of themselves uncorrupted they would have been of which divers Learned Persons have made publick complaint and demonstration they have at last fallen to a new trade which hath caus'd more disreputation to them than they have gain'd advantage and they have virtually confess'd that in many things the Fathers are against them For first the King of Spain gave a Commission to the Inquisitors to purge all Catholick Authors but with this clause Iique ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se indicem expurgatorium habebunt quem eundum neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt that they should keep the expurgatory Index privately neither imparting that Index nor giving a copy of it to any But it happened by the Divine Providence so ordering it that about thirteen years after a copy of it was gotten and published by Johannes Pappus and Franciscus Junius and since it came abroad against their wills they find it necessary now to own it and they have printed it themselves Now by these expurgatory Tables what they have done is known to all Learned Men. In Saint Chrysostom's Works printed at Basil these words The Church is not built upon the Man but upon the Faith are commanded to be blotted out and these There is no merit but what is given us by Christ and yet these words are in his Sermon upon Pentecost and the former words are in his first Homily upon that of Saint John Ye are my friends c. The like they have done to him in many other places and to Saint Ambrose and to Saint Austin and to them all insomuch that Ludovicus Saurius the Corrector of the Press at Lyons shewed and complain'd of it to Junius that he was forc'd to cancellate or blot out many sayings of Saint Ambrose in that Edition of his Works which was printed at Lyons 1559. So that what they say on occasion of Bertram's Book In the old Catholick Writers we suffer very many errors and extenuate and excuse them and finding out some Commentary we feign some convenient sence when they are oppos'd in disputations they do indeed practise but esteem it not sufficient for the words which make against them they wholly leave out of their Editions Nay they correct the very Tables or Indices made by the Printers or Correctors insomuch that out of one of Froben's Indices they have commanded these words to be blotted The use of Images forbidden The Eucharist no Sacrifice but the memory of a Sacrifice Works although they do not justifie yet are necessary to Salvation Marriage is granted to all that will nor contain Venial sins damn The dead Saints after this life cannot help us nay out of the Index of Saint Austin's Works by Claudius Chevallonius at Paris 1531. there is a very strange deleatur Dele Solus Deus adorandus that God alone is to be worshipped is commanded to be blotted out as being a dangerous Doctrine These Instances may serve instead of multitudes which might be brought of their corrupting the Witnesses and razing the Records of Antiquity that the errors and Novelties of the Church of Rome might not be so easily reprov'd Now if
the Fathers were not against them what need these Arts Why should they use them thus Their own expurgatory indices are infinite testimony against them both that they do so and that they need it But besides these things we have thought it fit to represent in one aspect some of their chief Doctrines of difference from the Church of England and make it evident that they are indeed new and brought into the Church first by way of opinion and afterwards by power and at last by their own authority decreed into Laws and Articles SECT II. FIRST We alledge that that this very power of making new Articles is a Novelty and expresly against the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and we prove it first by the words of the Apostle saying If we or an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you any other Gospel viz. in whole or in part for there is the same reason of them both than that which we have preached let him be Anathema and secondly by the sentence of the Fathers in the third General Council that at Ephesus That it should not be lawful for any Man to publish or compose another Faith or Creed than that which was defin'd by the Nicene Council and that whosoever shall dare to compose or offer any such to any Persons willing to be converted from Paganism Judaism or Heresie if they were Bishops or Clerks they should be depos'd if Lay-men they should be accursed And yet in the Church of Rome Faith and Christianity increase like the Moon Bromyard complain'd of it long since and the mischief increases daily They have now a new Article of Faith ready for the stamp which may very shortly become necessary to salvation we mean that of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Whether the Pope be above a Council or no we are not sure whether it be an Article of Faith amongst them or not It is very near one if it be not Bellarmine would fain have us believe that the Council of Constance approving the Bull of Pope Martin the fifth declar'd for the Popes Supremacy But John Gerson who was at the Council sayes that the Council did abate those heights to which flattery had advanc'd the Pope and that before that Council they spoke such great things of the Pope which afterwards moderate Men durst not speak but yet some others spake them so confidently before it that he that should then have spoken to the contrary would hardly have escap'd the note of Heresie and that these Men continued the same pretensions even after the Council But the Council of Basil decreed for the Council against the Pope and the Council of Lateran under Leo the tenth decreed for the Pope against the Council So that it is cross and pile and whether for a penny when it can be done it is now a known case it shall become an Article of Faith But for the present it is a probationary Article and according to Bellarmine's expression is serè de fide it is almost an Article of Faith they want a little age and then they may go alone But the Council of Trent hath produc'd a strange new Article but it is sine controversiâ credendum it must be believ'd and must not be controverted that although the ancient Fathers did give the Communion to Infants yet they did not believe it necessary to salvation Now this being a matter of fact whether they did or did not believe it every man that reads their writings can be able to inform himself and besides that it is strange that this should be determin'd by a Council and determin'd against evident truth it being notorious that divers of the Fathers did say it is necessary to salvation the decree it self is beyond all bounds of modesty and a strange pretension of Empire over the Christian belief But we proceed to other Instances SECT III. THE Roman Doctrine of Indulgences was the first occasion of the great change and Reformation of the Western Churches begun by the Preachings of Martyn Luther and others and besides that it grew to that intolerable abuse that it became a shame to it self and a reproach to Christendom it was also so very an Innovation that their great Antoninus confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the ancient Doctors And the same is affirmed by Sylvester Prierias Bishop Fisher of Rochester sayes that in the beginning of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory and many of the School-men confess that the use of Indulgences began in the time of Pope Alexander the third towards the end of the twelfth Century but Agrippa imputes the beginning of them to Boniface the eighth who liv'd in the Reign of King Edward the first of England 1300. years after Christ. But that in his time the first Jubilee was kept we are assur'd by Crantzius This Pope lived and died with great infamy and therefore was not likely from himself to transfer much honour and reputation to the new institution But that about this time Indulgences began is more than probable much before it is certain they were not For in the whole Canon Law written by Gratian and in the sentences of Peter Lombard there is nothing spoken of Indulgences Now because they liv'd in the time of Pope Alexander the third if he had introduc'd them and much rather if they had been as ancient as Saint Gregory as some vainly and weakly pretend from no greater authority than their own Legends it is probable that these great Men writing Bodies of Divinity and Law would have made mention of so considerable a Point and so great a part of the Roman Religion as things are now order'd If they had been Doctrines of the Church then as they are now it is certain they must have come under their cognisance and discourses Now lest the Roman Emissaries should deceive any of the good Sons of the Church we think it fit to acquaint them that in the Primitive Church when the Bishops impos'd severe penances and that they were almost quite perform'd and a great cause of pity intervened or danger of death or an excellent repentance or that the Martyrs interceded the Bishop did sometimes indulge the penitent and relax some of the remaining parts of his penance and according to the example of Saint Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian gave them ease lest they should be swallowed up with too much sorrow But the Roman Doctrine of Indulgences is wholly another thing nothing of it but the abused name remains For in the Church of Rome they now pretend that there is an infinite of degrees of Christ's merits and satisfaction beyond what is necessary for the salvation of his servants and for fear Christ should not have enough the Saints have a surplusage of
merits or at least of satisfactions more than they can spend or themselves do need and out of these the Church hath made her a treasure a kind of poor-mans box and out of this a power to take as much as they list to apply to the poor souls in Purgatory who because they did not satisfie for their venial sins or perform all their penances which were imposed or which might have been imposed and which were due to be paâ—d to God for the temporal pains reserved upon them after he had forgiven them the guilt of their deadly sins are forc'd sadly to roar in pains not inferiour to the pains of Hell excepting only that that they are not eternal That this is the true state of their Article of Indulgences we appeal to Bellarmine Now concerning their new foundation of Indulgences the first stone of it was laid by Pope Clement the sixth in his extravagant Vnigenitus de poenitentiis remissionibus A. D. 1350. This Constitution was published fifty years after the first Jubilee and was a new device to bring in Customers to Rome at the second Jubilee which was kept in Rome in this Popes time What ends of profit and interest it serv'd we are not much concern'd to enquire but this we know that it had not yet passed into a Catholick Doctrine for it was disputed against by Franciscus de Mayronis and Durandus not long before this extravagant and that it was not rightly form'd to their purposes till the stirs in Germany rais'd upon the occasion of Indulgences made Leo the tenth set his Clerks on work to study the point and make something of it But as to the thing it self it is so wholly new so meerly devis'd and forged by themselves so newly created out of nothing from great mistakes of Scripture and dreams of shadows from Antiquity that we are to admonish our charges that they cannot reasonably expect many sayings of the Primitive Doctors against them any more than against the new fancies of the Quakers which were born but yesterday That which is not cannot be numbred and that which was not could not be confuted But the perfect silence of Antiquity in this whole matter is an abundant demonstration that this new nothing was made in the later Laboratories of Rome For as Durandus said the Holy Fathers Ambrose Hillary Hierom Augustine speak nothing of Indulgences And whereas it is said that Saint Gregory six hundred years after Christ gave Indulgences at Rome in the stations Magister Angularis who lived about two hundred years since sayes he never read of any such any where and it is certain there is no such thing in the Writings of Saint Gregory nor in any History of that Age or any other that is authentick and we could never see any History pretended for it by the Roman Writers but a Legend of Ledgerus brought to us the other day by Surius which is so ridiculous and weak that even their own parties dare not avow it as true story and therefore they are fain to make use of Thomas Aquinas upon the Sentences and Altisiodorensis for story and record And it were strange that if this power of giving Indulgences to take off the punishment reservâ—d by God after the sin is pardoned were given by Christ to his Church that no one of the ancient Doctors should tell any thing of it insomuch that there is no one Writer of authority and credit not the more ancient Doctors we have named nor those who were much later Rupertus Tuitiensis Anselm or Saint Bernard ever took notice of it but it was a Doctrine wholly unknown to the Church for about one thousand two hundred years after Christ and Cardinal Cajetan told Pope Adrian the sixth that to him that readeth the Decretals it plainly appears that an Indulgence is nothing else but an absolution from that penance which the Confessor hath imposed and therefore can be nothing of that which is now adayes pretended True it is that the Canonical penances were about the time of Burchard lessen'd and alter'd by commutations and the ancient Discipline of the Church in imposing penances was made so loose that the Indulgence was more than the Imposition and began not to be an act of mercy but remisness and absolution without amends It became a Trumpet and a Leavy for the Holy War in Pope Vrban the Seconds time for he gave a plenary Indulgence and remission of all sins to them that should go and fight against the Sarazens and yet no man could tell how much they were the better for these Indulgences for concerning the value of Indulgences the complaint is both old and doubtful said Pope Adrian and he cites a famous gloss which tells of four Opinions all Catholick and yet vastly differing in this particular but the Summa Angelica reckons seven Opinions concerning what that penalty is which is taken off by Indulgences No man could then tell and the Point was but in the infancy and since that they have made it what they please but it is at last turn'd into a Doctrine and they have devised new Propositions as well as they can to make sence of it and yet it is a very strange thing a solution not an absolution it is the distinction of Bellarmine that is the sinner is let to go free without punishment in this World or in the world to come and in the end it grew to be that which Christendom could not suffer a heap of Doctrines without Grounds of Scripture or Catholick Tradition and not only so but they have introduc'd a way of remitting sins that Christ and his Apostles taught not a way destructive to the repentance and remission of sins which was preached in the Name of Jesus it brought into the Church false and fantastick hopes a hope that will make men asham'd a hope that does not glorifie the merits and perfect satisfaction of Christ a doctrine expresly dishonourable to the full and free pardon given us by God through Jesus Christ a practice that supposes a new bunch of Keyes given to the Church besides that which the Apostles receiv'd to open and shut the Kingdom of Heaven a Doctrine that introduces pride among the Saints and advances the opinion of their works beyond the measures of Christ who taught us That when we have done all that is commanded we are unprofitable servants and therefore certainly cannot supererogate or do more than what is infinitely recompenc'd by the Kingdom of Glory to which all our doings and all our sufferings are not worthy to be compar'd especially since the greatest Saint cannot but say with David Enter not into judgment with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living can be justified It is a practice that hath turn'd Penances into a Fair and the Court of Conscience into a Lombard and the labours of Love into the labours of Pilgrimages superstitious and useless wandrings from place to
peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs blood for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the blood for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the blood and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mention'd So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispence in this affair because S. Paul said that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question SECT V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue THE Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines and Practices I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis But say my adversaries there is no such book Well! was there such a man as S. Basil If so we are well enough and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard and in the 130. page he shall see this Book Sermon or Homily in aliquot scripturae locis at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent there we shall find the lost Sheep The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer the Monitions in the Psalms the precepts of the Proverbs Search ye the beauty of the history and the examples and add to these the precepts of the Apostles But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel as the Crown and perfection that receiving profit from them all ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit Now this difficulty being over all that remains for my own justification is that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures exhorting even the Laity to do so and testifie the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue and commending this as most useful and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words concerning preaching and praying for edification and so as to be understood coming to those words of S. Paul If I pray with my tongue my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit you see saith he how a little extolling prayer he shews that he who is such a one viz. as the Apostle there describes is not only unprofitable to others but also to himself since his mind is without fruit Now if a man praying what he understands not does
more deliberate in their absolutions and severe in their impositions of satisfactions requiring a longer time of Repentance before the penitents be reconcil'd Monsieur Arnauld of the Sorbon hath appeared publickly in reproof of a frequent and easie Communion without the just and long preparations of Repentance and its proper exercises and Ministery Petavius the Jesuit hath oppos'd him the one cries The present Church the other The Ancient Church and as Petavius is too hard for his adversary in the present Authority so Monsieur Arnauld hath the clearest advantage in the pretensions of Antiquity and the arguments of Truth from which Petavius and his abettor Bagot the Jesuit have no escape or defensative but by distinguishing Repentance into Solemn and Sacramental which is just as if they should say Repentance is twofold one such as was taught and practis'd by the Primitive Church the other that which is in use this day in the Church of Rome for there is not so much as one pregnant testimony in Antiquity for the first four hundred years that there was any Repentance thought of but Repentance toward God and sometimes perform'd in the Church in which after their stations were perform'd they were admitted to the holy Communion excepting only in the danger or article of death in which they hastened the Communion and enjoyn'd the stations to be afterwards completed in case they did recover and if they did not they left the event to God But this question of theirs can never be ended upon the new principles nor shall be freely argued because of their interest For whoever are obliged to profess some false propositions shall never from thence find out an intire truth but like caskes in a troubled sea sometimes they will be under water sometimes above For the productions of error are infinite but most commonly monstrous and in the fairest of them there will be some crooked or deformed part But of the thing it self I have given such accounts as I could being ingaged on no side and the servant of no interest and have endeavour'd to represent the dangers of every sinner the difficulty of obtaining pardon the many parts and progressions of Repentance the severity of the Primitive Church their rigid Doctrines and austere Disciplines the degrees of easiness and complyings that came in by negligence and I desire that the effect should be that all the pious and religious Curates of Souls in the Church of England would endeavour to produce so much fear and reverence caution and wariness in all their penitents that they should be willing to undergo more severe methods in their restitution than now they do that men should not dare to approach to the holy Sacrament as soon as ever their foul hands are wet with a drop of holy rain but that they should expect the periods of life and when they have given to their Curate fair testimony of a hearty Repentance and know it to be so within themselves they may with comfort to all parties communicate with holiness and joy For I conceive this to be that event of things which was design'd by S. Paul in that excellent advice Obey them that have the rule over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 submit your selves viz. to their ordering and discipline because they watch for your souls as they that must give accounts for them that they may do it with joy I am sure we cannot give accounts of souls of which we have no notice and though we had reason to rescue them from the yoke of bondage which the unjust laws and fetters of annual and private Confession as it was by them ordered did make men to complain of yet I believe we should be all unwilling our Charges should exchange these fetters for worse and by shaking off the laws of Confession accidentally entertain the tyranny of sin It was neither fit that all should be tied to it nor yet that all should throw it off There are some sins and some cases and some persons to whom an actual Ministery and personal provision and conduct by the Priests Office were better than food or physick It were therefore very well if great sinners could be invited to bear the yoke of holy discipline and do their Repentances under the conduct of those who must give an account of them that they would inquire into the state of their souls that they would submit them to be judged by those who are justly and rightly appointed over them or such whom they are permitted to chuse and then that we would apply our selves to understand the secrets of Religion the measures of the Spirit the conduct of Souls the advantages and disadvantages of things and persons the ways of life and death the lahyrinths of temptation and all the remedies of sin the publick and private the great and little lines of Conscience and all those ways by which men may be assisted and promoted in the ways of godliness for such knowledge as it is most difficult and secret untaught and unregarded so it is most necessary and for want of it the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist is oftentimes given to them that are in the gall of bitterness that which is holy is given to Dogs Indeed neither we nor our Forefathers could help it always and the Discipline of the Church could seize but upon few all were invited but none but the willing could receive the benefit but however it were pity that men upon the account of little and trifling objections should be discouraged from doing themselves benefit and from enabling us with greater advantages to do our duty to them It was of old observed of the Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they obey the laws and by the excellency of their own lives excel the perfection of the laws and it is not well if we shall be earnest to tell them that such a thing is not necessary if we know it to be good For in this present dissolution of manners to tell the people concerning any good thing that it is not necessary is to tempt them to let it alone The Presbyterian Ministers who are of the Church of England just as the Irish are English have obtained such power with their Proselytes that they take some account of the Souls of such as they please before they admit them to their communion in Sacraments they do it to secure them to their party or else make such accounts to be as their Shibboleth to discern their Jews from the men of Ephraim but it were very well we would do that for Conscience for Charity and for Piety which others do for Interest or Zeal and that we would be careful to use all those Ministeries and be earnest for all those Doctrines which visibly in the causes of things are apt to produce holiness and severe living It is no matter whether by these arts any Sect or Name be promoted it is certain Christian Religion would and that 's the real interest of us all
or lust and anger and grief and all things else which need great constancy and wisdom lest the storm should drown reason in us in the gulf of sin For these affections or passions were not sin but the excess of them not being bridled did effect this The same he affirms in Homl. 11. ad 6. Rom. and the 12. Homil. on Rom. 7. And not much unlike this was that excellent discourse of Lactantius in his seventh Book de Divino praemio cap. 5. But Theodoret in his Commentaries upon the Romans follows the same discourse exactly And this way of explicating the entrance and facility of sin upon us is usual in antiquity affirming that because we derive a miserable and an afflicted body from Adam upon that stock sin enters Quae quia materiam peccati ex fomite carnis Consociata trahit nec non simul ipsa sodali Est incentivum peccaminis implicat ambas Vindex poena reas peccantes mente sub unâ PeccandÃque cremet socias cruciatibus aequis Because the soul joyned to the body draws from the society of the flesh incentives and arguments to sin therefore both of them are punished as being guilty by consociation But then thus it was also before the fall For by this it was that Adam fell So the same Prudentius Haec prima est natura animae sic condita simplex Decidit in vitium per sordida foedera carnis The soul was created simple and pure but fell into vice by the evil combination with the flesh But if at first the appetites and necessities and tendencies of the body when it was at ease and health and blessed did yet tempt the soul to forbidden instances much more will this be done when the body is miserable and afflicted uneasie and dying For even now we see by a sad experience that the afflicted and the miserable are not only apt to anger and envy but have many more desires and more weaknesses and consequently more aptnesses to sin in many instances than those who are less troubled And this is that which was said by Arnobius Proni ad culpas ad libidinis varios appetitus vitio sumus infirmitatis ingenitae By the fault of our natural infirmity we are prone to the appetites of lust and sins 7. From hence it follows that naturally a man cannot do or perform the Law of God because being so weak so tempted by his body and this life being the bodies day that is the time in which its appetites are properly prevailing to be born of Adam is to be born under sin that is under such inclinations to it that as no man will remain innocent so no man can of himself keep the Law of God Vendidit se prior ac per hoc omne semen subjectum est peccato Quamobrem infirmum esse hominem ad praecepta legis servanda said the Author of the Commentary on S. Paul's Epistles usually attributed to S. Ambrose But beyond this there are two things more considerable the one is that the soul of man being devested by Adam's fall by way of punishment of all those supernatural assistances which God put into it that which remained was a reasonable soul fitted for the actions of life and of reason but not of any thing that was supernatural For the soul being immerged in flesh feeling grief by participation of evils from the flesh hath and must needs have discourses in order to its own ease and comfort that is in order to the satisfaction of the bodies desires which because they are often contradicted restrained and curbed and commanded to be mortified and killed by the laws of God must of necessity make great inlets for sin for while reason judges of things in proportion to present interests and is less apprehensive of the proportions of those good things which are not the good things of this life but of another the reason abuses the will as the flesh abuses the reason And for this there is no remedy but the grace of God the holy Spirit to make us be born again to become spiritual that is to have new principles new appetites and new interests The other thing I was to note is this That as the Devil was busie to abuse mankind when he was fortified by many advantages and favours from God So now that man is naturally born naked and devested of those graces and advantages and hath an infirm sickly body and enters upon the actions of life through infancy and childhood and youth and folly and ignorance the Devil it is certain will not omit his opportunities but will with all his power possess and abuse mankind and upon the apprehension of this the Primitive Church used in the first admission of infants to the entrance of a new birth to a spiritual life pray against the power and frauds of the Devil and that brought in the ceremony of Exsufflation for ejecting of the Devil The ceremony was fond and weak but the opinion that introduced them was full of caution and prudence For as Optatus Milevitanus said Neminem fugit quod omnis homo qui nascitur quamvis de Christianis parentibus nascitur sine Spiritu immundo esse non possit quem necesse sit ante salutare lavacrum ab homine excludi ac separari It is but too likely the Devil will take advantages of our natural weaknesses and with his temptations and abuses enter upon children as soon as they enter upon choice and indeed prepossess them with imitating follies that may become customs of sinfulness before they become sins and therefore with rare wisdom it was done by the Church to prevent the Devils frauds and violences by an early Baptism and early offices 8. As a consequent of all this it comes to pass that we being born thus naked of the Divine grace thus naturally weak thus incumbred with a body of sin that is a body apt to tempt to forbidden instances and thus assaulted by the frauds and violences of the Devil all which are helped on by the evil guises of the world it is certain we cannot with all these disadvantages and loads soar up to Heaven but in the whole constitution of affairs are in sad dispositions to enter into the Devils portion and go to Hell Not that if we die before we consent to evil we shall perish but that we are evilly disposed to do actions that will deserve it and because if we die before our new birth we have nothing in us that can according to the revelations of God dispose us to Heaven according to these words of the Apostle In me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing But this infers not that in our flesh or that in our soul there is any sin properly inherent which makes God to be our present enemy that is the only or the principal thing I suppose my self to have so much reason to deny But that the state of the body is a
in our first access to Christ because they for whom Christ and his Martyr S. Stephen prayed were not yet converted and so were to be saved by Baptismal Repentance Then the Power of the Keys is exercised and the gates of the Kingdom are opened then we enter into the Covenant of mercy and pardon and promise faith and perpetual obedience to the laws of Jesus and upon that condition forgiveness is promised and exhibited offer'd and consign'd but never after for it is in Christianity for all great sins as in the Civil Law for theft Qui eâ mente alienum quid contrectavit ut lucrifaceret tametsi mutato consilio id Domino postea reddidit fur est nemo enim tali peccato poenitentiâ suâ nocens esse desinit said Vlpian and Gaius Repentance does not here take off the punishment nor the stain And so it seems to be in Christianity in which every baptized person having stipulated for obedience is upon those terms admitted to pardon and consequently if he fails of his duty he shall fail of the grace 8. But that this objection may proceed no further it is certain that it is an infinite lessening of the mercy of God in Jesus Christ to confine pardon of sins only to the Font. For that even lapsed Christians may be restored by repentance and be pardoned appears in the story of the incestuous Corinthian and the precept of S. Paul to the spiritual man or the Curate of souls If any man be overtaken in a fault ye which are spiritual restore such a man in the spirit of meekness considering thy self lest thou also be tempted The Christian might fall and the Corinthian did so and the Minister himself he who had the ministery of restitution and reconciliation was also in danger and yet they all might be restored To the same sence is that of S. James Is any man sick among you let him send for the Presbyters of the Church and let them pray over him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although he was a doer of sins they shall be forgiven him For there is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sin that is not unto death And therefore when S. Austin in his first Book de Sermone Dei had said that there is some sin so great that it cannot be remitted he retracts his words with this clause addendum fuit c. I should have added If in so great perverseness of mind he ends his life For we must not despair of the worst sinner we may not despair of any since we ought to pray for all 9. For it is beyond exception or doubt that it was the great work of the Apostles and of the whole new Testament to engage men in a perpetual repentance For since all men do sin all men must repent or all men must perish And very many periods of Scripture are directed to lapsed Christians baptized persons fallen into grievous crimes calling them to repentance So Simon Peter to Simon Magus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Repent of thy wickedness and to the Corinthian Christians S. Paul urges the purpose of his legation We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled to God The Spirit of God reprov'd some of the Asian Churches for foul misdemeanours and even some of the Angels the Asian Bishops calling upon them to return to their first love and to repent and to do their first works and to the very Gnosticks and filthiest Hereticks he gave space to repent and threatned extermination to them if they did not do it speedily For 10. Baptism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the admission of us to the Covenant of Faith and Repentance or as Mark the Anchoret call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the introduction to repentance or that state of life that is full of labour and care and amendment of our faults for that is the best life that any man can live and therefore repentance hath its progress after baptism as it hath its beginning before for first repentance is unto baptism and then baptism unto repentance And if it were otherwise the Church had but ill provided for the state of her sons and daughters by commanding the baptism of Infants For if repentance were not allowed after then their early baptism would take from them all hopes of repentance and destroy the mercies of the Gospel and make it now to all Christendom a law of works in the greater instances because since in our infancy we neither need nor can perform repentance if to them that sin after baptism repentance be denied it is in the whole denied to them for ever to repent But God hath provided better things for us and such which accompany salvation 11. For besides those many things which have been already consider'd our admission to the holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is a perpetual entertainment of our hopes because then and there is really exhibited to us the body that was broken and the blood that was shed for remission of sins still it is applied and that application could not be necessary to be done anew if there were not new necessities and still we are invited to do actions of repentance to examine our selves and so to eat all which as things are order'd would be infinitely useless to mankind if it did not mean pardon to Christians falling into foul sins even after baptism 12. I shall add no more but the words of S. Paul to the Corinthians Lest when I come again my God will humble me among you and that I shall bewail many who have sinn'd already and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed Here is a fierce accusation of some of them for the foulest and the basest crimes and a reproof of their not repenting and a threatning them with censures Ecclesiastical I suppose this article to be sufficiently concluded from the premises The necessity of which proof they only will best believe who are severely penitent and full of apprehension and fear of the Divine anger because they have highly deserved it However I have serv'd my own needs in it and the need of those whose consciences have been or shall be so timorous as mine hath deserved to be But against the universality of this doctrine there are two grand objections The one is the severer practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church denying repentance to some kind of sinners after baptism The other the usual discourses and opinions concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost Of these I shall give account in the two following Sections SECT III. Of the Difficulty of obtaining Pardon The Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church in this Article 13. NOvatianus and Novatus said that the Church had not power to minister pardon of sins except only in Baptism which proposition when they had well digested and considered they did thus explicate That there are some capital sins crying and clamorous into
could not absolve such persons in plain speaking seems to mean that since the Church ministers nothing of her own but is the Minister of the Divine mercy she had no commission to promise pardon to such persons If God had promised pardon to such Criminals it is certain the Church was bound to preach it but if she could not declare preach or exhibite any such promise then there was no such promise and therefore their sending them to God was but a put off or a civil answer saying that God might do it if he please but he had not signified his pleasure concerning them and whether they who sinn'd so foully after Baptism were pardonable was no where revealed and therefore all the Ministers of Religion were bound to say they were unpardonable that is God never said he would pardon them which is the full sence of the word Vnpardonable For he that says any sin is unpardonable does not mean that God cannot pardon it but that he will not or that he hath not said he will 25. And upon the same account it seem'd unreasonable to S. Ambrose that the Church should impose penances and not release the penitents He complain'd of the Novatians for so doing Cùm utique veniam negando incentivum auferant poenitentiae The penitents could have little encouragement to perform the injunctions of their Confessors when after they had done them they should not be admitted to the Churches communion And indeed the case was hard when it should be remembred that whatsoever the Church did bind on Earth was bound in Heaven and if they retain'd them below God would do so above and therefore we find in Scripture that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to give repentance being the purpose of Christ's coming and the grace of the Gospel does mean to give the effect of Repentance that is pardon And since Gods method is such by giving the grace and admitting us to do the duty he consequently brings to that mercy which is the end of that duty it is fit that should also be the method of the Church 26. For the ballancing of this Consideration we are further to consider that though the Church had power to pardon in all things where God had declar'd he would yet because in some sins the malice was so great the scandal so intolerable the effect so mischievous the nature of them so contradictory to the excellent laws of Christianity the Church many times could not give a competent judgment whether any man that had committed great sins had made his amends and done a sufficient penance and the Church not knowing whether their Repentance was worthy and acceptable to God she could not pronounce their pardon that is she could not tell them whether upon those terms God had or would pardon them in the present disposition 27. For after great crimes the state of a sinner is very deplorable by reason of his uncertain pardon not that it is uncertain whether God will pardon the truly penitent but that it is uncertain who is so and all the ingredients into the judgment that is to be made are such things which men cannot well discern they cannot tell in what measures God will exact the Repentance what sorrow is sufficient what fruits acceptable what is expiatory and what rejected according to the saying of Solomon Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin they cannot tell how long God will forbear at what time his anger is final and when he will refuse to hear or what aggravations of the crime God looks on nor can they make an estimate which is greater the example of the sin or the example of the punishment And therefore in such great cases the Church had reason to refuse to give pardon which she could minister neither certainly nor prudently nor as the case then stood safely or piously 28. But yet she enjoyn'd Penances that is all the solemnities of Repentance and to them the sinners stood bound in Earth and consequently in Heaven according to the words of our blessed Saviour but she bound them no further She intended charity and relief to them not ruine and death eternal On this she had no direct power and if the penitent were obedient to her Discipline then neither could they be prejudic'd by her indirect power she sent them to God for pardon and made them to prepare themselves accordingly Her injunction of Penances was medicinal and her refusing to admit them to the Communion was an act of caution fitted to the present necessities of the Church Nonnullae ideò poscunt poenitentiam ut statim sibi reddi communionem velint Hae non tam se solvere cupiunt quà m sacerdotem ligare Some demand penances that they may have speedy communion These do not so much desire themselves to be loosed as to have the Priest bound that is such hasty proceedings do not any good to the penitent but much hurt to him that ministers This the Primitive Church avoided and this was the whole effect which that Discipline had upon the souls of the penitents But for their Doctrine S. Austin is a sufficient witness Sed neque de ipsis â—riminibus quamlibet magnis remittendis in Sanctâ Ecclesiâ Dei desperanda est misericordia agentibus poenitentiam secundum modum sui cujusque peccati They ought not to despair of Gods mercy even to the greatest sinners if they be the greatest penitents that is if they repent according to the measure of their sins Only in the making their judgments concerning the measures of Repentance they differ'd from our practices Ecclesiastical Repentance and Absolution was not only an exercise of the duty and an assisting of the penitent in his return but it was also a warranting or ensuring the pardon which because in many cases the Church could not so well do she did better in not undertaking it that is in not pronouncing Absolution 29. For the pardon of sins committed after Baptism not being described in full measures and though it be sufficiently signifi'd that any sin may be pardon'd yet it not being told upon what conditions this or that great one shall the Church did well and warily not to be too forward for as S. Paul said I am conscious to my self in nothing yet I am not hereby justified so we may say in Repentance I have repented and do so but I am not hereby justified because that is a secret which until the day of Judgment we shall not understand for every repenting is not sufficient He that repents worthily let his sin be what it will shall certainly be pardon'd but after great crimes who does repent worthily is a matter of harder judgment than the manners of the present age will allow us to make and so secret that they thought it not amiss very often to be backward in pronouncing the Criminal absolved 30. But then all this whole affair must needs be a mighty arrest to
praesunt tempora poenitentiae ut fiat etiam satis Ecclesiae in quâ remittuntur ipsa peccata Extra eam quippe non remittuntur The times of penance are with great reason appointed by Ecclesiastical Governours that the Church in whose communion sins are forgiven may be satisfied For out of her there is no forgiveness 45. For in this case the Church hath a power of binding and retaining sins and sinners that is a denying to them the priviledges of the faithful till they by publick repentance and satisfaction have given testimony of their return to Gods favour and service The Church may deny to pray publickly for some persons and refuse to admit them into the society of those that do pray and refuse till she is satisfied concerning them by such signs and indications as she will appoint and chuse For it appears in both Testaments that those who are appointed to pray for others to stand between God and the people had it left in their choice sometimes and sometimes were forbidden to pray for certain criminals Thus God gave to the Prophet charge concerning Ephraim Pray not thou for this people neither lift up cry nor prayer for them neither make intercession for them for I will not hear thee Like to this was that of S. John There is a sin unto death I say not that ye pray for him that sins unto death that is do not admit such persons to the communion of prayers and holy offices at least the Church may chuse whether she will or no. 46. The Church in her Government and Discipline had two ends and her power was accordingly apt to minister to these ends 1. By condemning and punishing the sin she was to do what she could to save the criminal that is by bringing him to repentance and a holy life to bring him to pardon 2. And if she could or if she could not effect this yet she was to remove the scandal and secure the flock from infection This was all that was needful this was all that was possible to be done In order to the first the Apostles had some powers extraordinary which were indeed necessary at the beginning of the Religion not only for this but for other ministrations The Apostles had power to bind sinners that is to deliver them over to Satan and to sad diseases or death it self and they had power to loose sinners that is to cure their diseases to unloose Satans bands to restore them to Gods favour and pardon 47. This manner of speaking was used by our blessed Saviour in this very case of sickness and infirmity Ought not this woman a daughter of Abraham whom Satan hath bound loe these eighteen years be loosed from this band on the Sabbath day The Apostles had this power of binding and loosing and that this is the power of remitting and retaining sins appears without exception in the words of our blessed Saviour to the Jews who best understood the power of forgiving sins by seeing the evil which sin brought on the guilty person taken away That ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins He saith to the man sick of the Palsie Arise take up thy bed and walk For there is a power in Heaven and a power on Earth to forgive sins The power that is in Heaven is the publick absolution of a sinner at the day of Judgment The power on Earth to forgive sins is a taking off those intermedial evils which are inflicted in the way sicknesses temporal death loss of the Divine grace and of the priviledges of the faithful These Christ could take off when he was upon Earth and his Heavenly Father sent him to do all this to heal all sicknesses and to cure all infirmities and to take away our sins and to preach glad tidings to the poor and comfort to the afflicted and rest to the weary and heavy laden The other judgment is to be perform'd by Christ at his second coming 48. Now as God the Father sent his Son so his holy Son sent his Apostles with the same power on Earth to bind and loose sinners to pardon sins by taking away the material evil effects which sin should superinduce or to retain sinners by binding them in sad and hard bands to bring them to reason or to make others afraid Thus S. Peter sentenc'd Ananias and Saphira to a temporal death and S. Paul stroke Elymas with blindness and deliver'd over the incestuous Corinthian to be beaten by an evil spirit and so also he did to Hymenaeus and Alexander 49. But this was an extraordinary power and not to descend upon the succeeding ages of the Church but it was in this as in all other ministeries something miraculous and extraordinary was for ever to consign a lasting truth and ministery in ordinary The preaching of the Gospel that is faith it self at first was prov'd by miracles and the Holy Ghost was given by signs and wonders and sins were pardon'd by the gifts of healing and sins were retained by the hands of an Angel and the very visitation of the sick was blessed with sensible and strange recoveries and every thing was accompanied with a miracle excepting the two Sacraments in the administration of which we do not find any mention of any thing visibly miraculous in the records of holy Scripture and the reason is plain because these two Sacraments were to be for ever the ordinary ministeries of those graces which at first were consign'd by signs and wonders extraordinary For in all ages of the Church reckoning exclusively from the days of the Apostles all the graces of the Gospel all the promises of God were conveyed or consign'd or fully ministred by these Sacraments and by nothing else but what was in order to them These were the inlets and doors by which all the faithful were admitted into the outer Courts of the Lords Temple or into the secrets of the Kingdom and the solemnities themselves were the Keys of these doors and they that had the power of ministration of them they had the power of the Keys 50. These then being the whole Ecclesiastical power and the summ of their ministrations were to be dispensed according to the necessities and differing capacities of the sons and daughters of the Church The Thessalonians who were not furnished with a competent number of Ecclesiastical Governours were commanded to abstain from the company of the brethren that walk'd disorderly S. John wrote to the Elect Lady that she should not entertain in her house false Apostles and when the former way did expire of it self and by the change of things and the second advice was not practicable and prudent they were reduced to the only ordinary ministery of remitting and retaining sins by a direct admitting or refusing and deferring to admit criminals to their ministeries of pardon which were now only left in the Church as their ordinary power and ministration For since in this world all our
reconciling of penitents in the Primitive Church was not done by the Bishop or Priest only but sometimes by Deacons as appears in Saint Cyprian and sometimes by the people as it was allowed by S. Paul in the case of the incestuous Corinthian and was frequently permitted to the Confessori in the times of persecution and may be done by an unbaptized Catechumen as S. Austin affirms The result of which is that this absolution of penitents in the Court Christian was not an act of Priestly power incommunicably it was not a dispensation of the proper power of the Keys but to give or not to give the Communion that was an effect of the power of the Keys that was really properly and in effect the Ecclesiastical absolution for that which the Deacons or Confessors the Laicks or Catechumens did was all that and only that which was of rite or ceremony before the giving the Communion therefore that which was besides this giving the Communion was no proper absolution it was not a Priestly act indispensably it might be done by them that were no Priests but the giving of the Communion that was a sacerdotal act I mean the consecration of it though the tradition of it was sometimes by Deacons sometimes by themselves at home This therefore was the dispensation of the Keys this was the effect of the powers of binding and loosing of remitting or retaining sins according as the sence and practice of the Church expounded her own power The prayers of the Priest going before his ministration of the Communion were called absolution that is the beginning and one of the first portions of it absolutio Sacerdotalium precum so it was called in ancient Councils the Priest imposed hands and prayed and then gave the Communion This was the ordinary way But there was an extraordinary 55. For in some cases the imposition of hands was omitted that is when the Bishop or Priest was absent and the Deacon prayed or the Confessor but this was first by the leave of the Bishop or Priest for to them it belong'd in ordinary And 2. this was nothing else but a taking them from the station of the penitents and a placing them amongst the faithful communicants either by declaring that their penances were performed or not to be exacted 56. For by this we shall be clear of an objection which might arise from the case of dying penitents to whom the Communion was given and they restored to the peace of the Church that is as they supposed to Gods mercy and the pardon of sins for they would not chuse to give the Communion to such persons whom they did not believe God had pardoned but these persons though communicated non tamen se credant absolutos sine manus impositione si supervixerint were not to suppose themselves absolved if they recovered that sickness without imposition of hands said the Fathers of the Fourth Council of Carthage by which it should seem absolution was a thing distinct from giving the Communion 57. To this I answer that the dying penitent was fully absolved in case he had receiv'd the first imposition of hands for repentance that is if in his health he submitted himself to penance and publick amends and was prevented from finishing the impositions they supposed that desire and endeavour of the penitent man was a worthy disposition to the receiving the holy Communion and both together sufficient for pardon but because this was only to be in the case of such intervening necessity and God will not accept of the will for the deed but in such cases where the deed cannot be accomplished therefore they bound such penitents to return to their first obligation in case they should recover since God had taken off their necessity and restored them to their first capacity And by this we understand the meaning of the third Canon of the first Arausican Council They who having received penance depart from the body it pleases that they shall be communicated sine reconciliatoriâ manus impositione without the reconciling imposition of hands that is because the penitential imposition of hands was imposed upon them and they did what they could though the last imposition was not though the last hand was not put upon them declaring that they had done their penances and completed their satisfactions yet they might be communicated that is absolved Quod morientis sufficit consolationi This is enough to the comfort of the dying man according to the definition of the Fathers who conveniently enough called such a Communion their Viaticum their Passe-port or provision for their way For there were two solemn impositions of hands in repentance The first and greatest was in the first admission of them and in the imposition of the Discipline or manner of performing penances and this was the Bishops office and of great consideration amongst the holy Primitives and was never done but by the superior Clergy as is evident in Ecclesiastical story The second solemn imposition of hands was immediately before their absolution or Communion and it was a holy prayer and publication that he was accepted and had finished that processe This was the less solemn and was ordinarily done by the superior Clergy but sometimes by others as I have remonstrated other intermedial impositions there were as appears by the Creber recursus mentioned in the third Council of Toledo above cited the penitents were often to beg the Bishops pardon or the Priests prayers and the advocations and intercessions of the faithful but the peace of the Church that is that pardon which she could minister and which she had a promise that God would confirm in Heaven was the Ministery of pardon in the dispensation of the Sacrament of that body that was broken and that blood that was poured forth for the remission of our sins 58. The result is That the absolution of sins which in the later forms and usages of the Church is introduced can be nothing but declarative the office of the preacher and the guide of souls of great use to timorous persons and to the greatest penitents full of comfort full of usefulness and institution and therefore although this very declaration of pardon may truly and according to the style of Scripture be called pardon and the power and office of pronouncing the penitents pardon is in the sence of the Scripture and the Church a good sence and signification of power as the Pharisees are said â—o justifie God when they declare his justice and as the preacher that converts a sinner is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to save a soul from death yet if we would speak properly and as things are in their own nature and institution this declarative absolution is only an act of preaching or opening and reading the Commission an effect of the Spirit of prudence and government entring upon the Church but the power of the Keys is another thing it is the dispensing all those rites and ministeries by
does but declare it so it effects it not 71. VIII And after all it is certain that the words of absolution effect no more than they signifie If therefore they do pardon the sin yet they do not naturally change the disposition or the real habit of the sinner And if the words can effect more they may be changed to signifie what they do effect for to signifie is less than to effect Can therefore the Church use this form of absolution I do by the power committed unto me change thy Attrition into Contrition The answer to this is not yet made for their pretence is so new and so wholly unexamined that they have not yet considered any thing of it It will therefore suffice for our institution in this useful material and practical question that no such words were instituted by Christ nor any thing like them no such were used by the Primitive Church no such power pretended And as this new doctrine of the Roman Church contains in it huge estrangements and distances from the spirit of Christianity is another kind of thing than the doctrine and practice of the Apostolical and succeeding ages of the Church did publish or exercise so it is a perfect destruction to the necessity of holy life it is a device only to advance the Priests office and to depress the necessity of holy dispositions it is a trick to make the graces of Gods holy Spirit to be bought and sold and that a man may at a price become holy in an instant just as if a Teacher of Musick should undertake to convey skill to his Scholar and fell the art and transmit it in an hour it is a device to make dispositions by art and in effect requires little or nothing of duty to God so they pay regard to the Priest But I shall need to oppose no more against it but those excellent words and pious meditation of Salvian Non levi agendum est contritione ut debita illa redimantur quibus mors aeterna debetur nec transitoriâ opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quae paratus est ignis aeternus It is not a light contrition by which those debts can be redeem'd to which eternal death is due neither can a transitory satisfaction serve for those evils for which God hath prepared the vengeance of eternal fire SECT VI. Of Penances or Satisfactions 72. IN the Primitive Church the word Satisfaction was the whole word for all the parts and exercises of repentance according to those words of Lactantius Poenitentiam proposuit ut si peccata nostra confessi Deo satisfecerimus veniam consequamur He propounded repentance that if we confessing our sins to God make amends or satisfaction we may obtain pardon Where it is evident that Satisfaction does not signifie in the modern sence of the word a full payment to the Divine Justice but by the exercises of repentance a deprecation of our fault and a begging pardon Satisfaction and pardon are not consistent if satisfaction signifie rigorously When the whole debt is paid there is nothing to be forgiven The Bishops and Priests in the Primitive Church would never give pardon till their satisfactions were performed To confess their sins to be sorrowful for them to express their sorrow to punish the guilty person to do actions contrary to their former sins this was their amends or Satisfaction and this ought to be ours So we find the word used in best Classick Authors So Plautus brings in Alcmena angry with Amphitruo Quin ego illum aut deseram Aut satisfaciat mihi atque adjuret insuper Nolle esse dicta quae in me insontem protulit i. e. I will leave him unless he give me satisfaction and swear that he wishes that to be unsaid which he spake against my innocence for that was the form of giving satisfaction to wish it undone or unspoken and to add an oath that they believe the person did not deserve that wrong as we find it in Terence Adelph Ego vestra haec novi nollem factum jusjurandum dabitur esse te indignum injuriâ hâc Concerning which who please to see more testimonies of the true sence and use of the word Satisfactions may please to look upon Lambinus in Plauti Amphitr and Laevinus Torrentius upon Suetonius in Julio Exomologesis or Confession was the word which as I noted formerly was of most frequent use in the Church Si de exomologesi retractas gehennam in corde considera quam tibi exomologesis extinguet He that retracts his sins by confessing and condemning them extinguishes the flames of Hell So Tertullian The same with that of S. Cyprian Deo patri misericordi precibus operibus suis satisfacere possunt They may satisfie God our Father and merciful by prayers and good works that is they may by these deprecate their fault and obtain mercy and pardon for their sins Peccatum suum satisfactione humili simplici confitentes So Cyprian confessing their sins with humble and simple satisfaction plainly intimating that Confession or Exomologesis was the same with that which they called Satisfaction And both of them were nothing but the publick exercise of repentance according to the present usages of their Churches as appears evidently in those words of Gennadius Poenitentiae satisfactionem esse causas peccatorum exscindere nec eorum suggestionibus aditum indulgere To cut off the causes of sins and no more to entertain their whispers and temptations is the satisfaction of repentance and like this is that of Lactantius Potest reduci liberari si eum poeniteat actorum ad meliora conversus satisfaciat Deo The sinner may be brought back and freed if he repents of what is done and satisfies or makes amends to God by being turned to better courses And the whole process of this is well described by Tertullian Exomologesis est quâ delictum Domino nostrum confitemur non quidem ut ignaro sed quatenus satisfactio confessione disponitur confessione poenitentia nascitur penitentiâ Deus mitigatur we must confess our sins to God not as if he did not know them already but because our satisfaction is dispos'd and order'd by confession by confession our repentance hath birth and production and by repentance God is appeased 73. Things being thus we need not immerge our selves in the trifling controversies of our later Schools about the just value of every work and how much every penance weighs and whether God is so satisfied with our penal works that in justice he must take off so much as we put on and is tied also to take our accounts Certain it is if God should weigh our sins with the same value as we weigh our own good works all our actions and sufferings would be found infinitely too light in the balance Therefore it were better that we should do what we can and humbly beg of God to weigh them both with vast allowances of
and cellars and retirements think that they being upon the defensive those Princes and those Laws that drive them to it are their enemies and therefore they cannot be secure unless the power of the one and the obligation of the other be lessened and rescinded and then the being restrained and made miserable endears the discontented persons mutually and makes more hearty and dangerous Confederations King James of blessed memory in his Letters to the States of the Vnited Provinces dated 6. March 1613. thus wrote Magis autem è re fore si sopiantur authoritate publicâ ità ut prohibeatis Ministros vestros nè eas disputationes in suggestum aut ad plebem ferant ac districtè imperetis ut pacem colant se invicem tolerando in ista opinionum ac sententiarum discrepantia Eóque justiùs videmur vobis hoc ipsum suadere debere quòd neutram comperimus adeò deviam ut non possint cum fidei Christianae veritate cum animarum salute consistere c. The like counsel in the divisions of Germany at the first Reformation was thought reasonable by the Emperour Ferdinand and his excellent Son Maximilian For they had observed that violence did exasperate was unblessed unsuccessfull and unreasonable and therefore they made Decrees of Toleration and appointed tempers and expedients to be drawn up by discreet persons and George Cassander was design'd to this great work and did something towards it And Emanuel Philibert Duke of Savoy repenting of his war undertaken for Religion against the Pedemontans promised them Toleration and was as good as his word As much is done by the Nobility of Polonia So that the best Princes and the best Bishops gave Toleration and Impunities but it is known that the first Persecutions of disagreeing persons were by the Arians by the Circumcellians and Donatists and from them they of the Church took examples who in small numbers did sometime perswade it sometime practise it And among the Greeks it became a publick and authorized practice till the Question of Images grew hot and high for then the Worshippers of Images having taken their example from the Empress Irene who put her son's eyes out for making an Edict against Images began to be as cruel as they were deceived especially being encouraged by the Popes of Rome who then blew the coals to some purpose And that I may upon this occasion give account of this affair in the Church of Rome it is remarkable that till the time of Justinian the Emperour A.D. 525. the Catholicks and Novatians had Churches indifferently permitted even in Rome itself but the Bishops of Rome whose interest was much concerned in it spoke much against it and laboured the eradication of the Novatians and at last when they got power into their hands they served them accordingly but it is observed by Socrates that when the first Persecution was made against them at Rome by Pope Innocent I. at the same instant the Goths invaded Italy and became Lords of all it being just in God to bring a Persecution upon them for true belief who with an incompetent Authority and insufficient grounds do persecute an errour less material in persons agreeing with them in the profession of the same common Faith And I have heard it observed as a blessing upon S. Austin who was so mercifull to erring persons as the greatest part of his life in all senses even when he had twice changed his minde yet to tolerate them and never to endure they should be given over to the Secular power to be killed that the very night the Vandals set down before his City of Hippo to besiege it he died and went to God being as a reward of his mercifull Doctrine taken from the miseries to come And yet that very thing was also a particular issue of the Divine Providence upon that City who not long before had altered their profession into truth by force and now were falling into their power who afterward by a greater force turned them to be Arians But in the Church of Rome the Popes were the first Preachers of force and violence in matters of Opinion and that so zealously that Pope Vigilius suffered himself to be imprisoned and handled roughly by the Emperour Justinian rather then he would consent to the restitution and peace of certain disagreeing persons But as yet it came not so far as Death The first that preached that Doctrine was Dominick the Founder of the Begging Orders of Friers the Friers Preachers in memory of which the Inquisition is intrusted onely to the Friers of his Order And if there be any force in Dreams or truth in Legends as there is not much in either this very thing might be signified by his Mother's dream who the night before Dominick was born dreamed she was brought to bed of a huge Dog with a fire-brand in his mouth Sure enough however his Disciples expound the dream it was a better sign that he should prove a rabid furious Incendiary then any thing else whatever he might be in the other parts of his life in his Doctrine he was not much better as appears in his deportment toward the Albigenses against whom he so preached adeo quidem ut centum haereticorum millia ab octo millibus Catholicorum fusa interfecta fuisse perhibeantur saith one of him and of those who were taken 180 were burnt to death because they would not abjure their Doctrine This was the first example of putting erring persons to death that I find in the Roman Church For about 170 years before Berengarius fell into opinion concerning the blessed Sacrament which they called Heresie and recanted and relapsed and recanted again and fell again two or three times saith Gerson writing against Romant of the Rose and yet he died sicca morte his own natural death and with hope of Heaven and yet Hildebrand was once his Judge which shews that at that time Rome was not come to so great heights of bloudshed In England although the Pope had as great power here as any-where yet there were no executions for matter of Opinion known till the time of Henry the fourth who because he usurped the Crown was willing by all means to endear the Clergy by destroying their enemies that so he might be sure of them to all his purposes And indeed it may become them well enough who are wiser in their generations then the children of light it may possibly serve the policies of evil persons but never the pure and chast dâ—signs of Christianity which admits no bloud but Christ's and the imitating bloud of Martyrs but knows nothing how to serve her ends by persecuting any of her erring Children By this time I hope it will not be thought reasonable to say he that teaches mercy to erring persons teaches indifferency in Religion unless so many Fathers and so many Churches and the best of Emperours and all the world till they were abused by Tyranny
the thing certain to another much less necessary in it self And since God would not bind us upon pain of sin and punishment to make deductions our selves much less would he bind us to follow another mans Logick as an Article of our Faith I say much less another mans for our own integrity for we will certainly be true to our selves and do our own business heartily is as fit and proper to be imployed as another mans ability He cannot secure me that his ability is absolute and the greatest but I can be more certain that my own purposes and fidelity to my self is such And since it is necessary to rest somewhere lest we should run to an infinity it is best to rest there where the Apostles and the Churches Apostolical rested when not only they who are able to judge but others who are not are equally ascertained of the certainty and of the sufficiency of that explication 12. This I say not that I believe it unlawful or unsafe for the Church or any of the Antistites religionis or any wise man to extend his own Creed to any thing may certainly follow from any one of the Articles but I say that no such deduction is fit to be prest on others as an Article of Faith and that every deduction which is so made unless it be such a thing as is at first evident to all is but sufficient to make a humane Faith nor can it amount to a divine much less can be obligatory to bind a person of a differing perswasion to subscribe under pain of losing his Faith or being a Heretick For it is a demonstration that nothing can be necessary to be believed under pain of damnation but such propositions of which it is certain that God hath spoken and taught them to us and of which it is certain that this is their sence and purpose For if the sence be uncertain we can no more be obliged to believe it in a certain sence than we are to believe it at all if it were not certain that God delivered it But if it be only certain that God spake it and not certain to what sence our faith of it is to be as indeterminate as its sence and it can be no other in the nature of the thing nor is it consonant to Gods justice to believe of him that he can or will require more And this is of the nature of those propositions which Aristotle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which without any further probation all wise men will give assent at its first publication And therefore deductions inevident from the evident and plain letter of Faith are as great recessions from the obligation as they are from the simplicity and certainty of the Article And this I also affirm although the Church of any one denomination or represented in a Council shall make the deduction or declaration For unless Christ had promised his Spirit to protect every particular Church from all errours less material unless he had promised an absolute universal infallibility etiam in minutioribus unless super-structures be of the same necessity with the foundation and that Gods Spirit doth not only preserve his Church in the being of a Church but in a certainty of not saying any thing that is less certain and that whether they will or no too we may be bound to peace and obedience to silence and to charity but have not a new Article of Faith made and a new proposition though consequent as 't is said from an Article of Faith becomes not therefore a part of the Faith nor of absolute necessity Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hoc idem postea diligentius crederetur said Vincentius Lirinensis whatsoever was of necessary belief is so still and hath a new degree added by reason of a new light or a clear explication but no propositions can be adopted into the foundation The Church hath power to intend our Faith but not to extend it to make our belief more evident but not more large and comprehensive For Christ and his Apostles concealed nothing that was necessary to the integrity of Christian Faith or salvation of our souls Christ declared all the will of his Father and the Apostles were Stewards and Dispensers of the same Mysteries and were faithful in all the house and therefore concealed nothing but taught the whole Doctrine of Christ so they said themselves And indeed if they did not teach all the Doctrine of Faith an Angel or a man might have taught us other things than what they taught without deserving an Anathema but not without deserving a blessing for making up that Faith intire which the Apostles left imperfect Now if they taught all the whole body of Faith either the Church in the following Ages lost part of the Faith and then was their infallibility and the effect of those glorious promises to which she pretends and hath certain Title for she may as well introduce a falshood as lose a truth it being as much promised to her that the Holy Ghost shall lead her into all truth as that she shall be preserved from all errours as appears John 16.13 Or if she retained all the Faith which Christ and his Apostles consign'd and taught then no Age can by declaring any point make that be an Article of Faith which was not so in all Ages of Christianity before such declaration And indeed if the Church by declaring an Article can make that to be necessary which before was not necessary I do not see how it can stand with the charity of the Church so to do especially after so long experience she hath had that all men will not believe every such decision or explication for by so doing she makes the narrow way to Heaven narrower and chalks out one path more to the Devil than he had before and yet the way was broad enough when it was at the narrowest For before differing persons might be saved in diversity of perswasions and now after this declaration if they cannot there is no other alteration made but that some shall be damned who before even in the same dispositions and belief should have been beatified persons For therefore it is well for the Fathers of the Primitive Church that their errours were not discovered for if they had been contested for that would have been called discovery enough vel errores emendassent vel ab Ecclesiâ ejecti fuissent But it is better as it was they went to heaven by that good-fortune whereas otherwise they might have gone to the Devil And yet there were some errours particularly that of Saint Cyprian that was discovered and he went to heaven 't is thought possibly they might so too for all this pretence But suppose it true yet whether that declaration of an Article of which with safety we either might have doubted or been ignorant does more good
he is angry at it neque enim putare debemus esse praescriptum ut quod in aliquo loco res aliqua per similitudinem significaverit hoc etiam semper significare credamus 3. Thirdly Oftentimes Scriptures are pretended to be expounded by a proportion and Analogy of reason And this is as the other if it be well it 's well But unless there were some intellectus universalis furnished with infallible propositions by referring to which every man might argue infallibly this Logick may deceive as well as any of the rest For it is with reason as with mens tastes although there are some general principles which are reasonable to all men yet every man is not able to draw out all its consequences nor to understand them when they are drawn forth nor to believe when he does understand them There is a precept of S. Paul directed to the Thessalonians before they were gathered into a body of a Church 2 Thes. 3.6 To withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly But if this precept were now observed I would fain know whether we should not fall into that inconvenience which S. Paul sought to avoid in giving the same commandment to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5.9 I wrote to you that ye should not company with fornicators And yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world for then ye must go out of the world And therefore he restrains it to a quitting the society of Christians living ill lives But now that all the world hath been Christians if we should sin in keeping company with vitious Christians must we not also go out of this world Is not the precept made null because the reason is altered and things are come about and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called brethren as S. Pauls phrase is And yet either this never was considered or not yet believed for it is generally taken to be obligatory though I think seldom practised But when we come to expound Scriptures to a certain sence by Arguments drawn from prudential motives then we are in a vast plain without any sufficient guide and we shall have so many sences as there are humane prudences But that which goes further than this is a parity of reason from a plain place of Scripture to an obscure from that which is plainly set down in a Text to another that is more remote from it And thus is that place in S. Matthew forced If thy brother refuse to be amended Dic ecclesiae Hence some of the Roman Doctors argue If Christ commands to tell the Church in case of adultery or private injury then much more in case of heresie Well suppose this to be a good Interpretation Why must I stay here Why may not I also adde by a parity of reason If the Church must be told of heresie much more of treason And why may not I reduce all sins to the cognizance of a Church tribunal as some men do directly and Snecanus does heartily and plainly If a mans principles be good and his deductions certain he need not care whither they carry him But when an Authority is intrusted to a person and the extent of his power expressed in his commission it will not be safety to meddle beyond his commission upon confidence of a parity of reason To instance once more When Christ in pasce oves tu es Petrus gave power to the Pope to govern the Church for to that sence the Church of Rome expounds those Authorities by a certain consequence of reason say they he gave all things necessary for exercise of this jurisdiction and therefore in pasce oves he gave him an indirect power over temporals for that is necessary that he may do his duty Well having gone thus far we will go farther upon the parity of reason therefore he hath given the Pope the gift of tongues and he hath given him power to give it for how else shall Xavier convert the Indians He hath given him power also to command the Seas and the winds that they should obey him for this also is very necessary in some cases And so pasce oves is accipe donum linguarum and Impera ventis dispone regum diademata laicorum praedia and influentias coeli too and whatsoever the parity of reason will judge equally necessary in order to pasce oves When a man does speak reason it is but reason he should be heard but though he may have the good fortune or the great abilities to do it yet he hath not a certainty no regular infallible assistance no inspiration of Arguments and deductions and if he had yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason unless other mens understandings were of the same aire the same constitution and ability they cannot be prescribed unto by another mans reason especially because such reasonings as usually are in explication of particular places of Scripture depend upon minute circumstances and particularities in which it is so easie to be deceived and so hard to speak reason regularly and always that it is the greater wonder if we be not deceived 4. Fourthly Others pretend to expound Scripture by the analogie of Faith and that is the most sure and infallible way as it is thought But upon stricter survey it is but a Chimera a thing in nubibus which varies like the right hand and left hand of a Pillar and at the best is but like the Coast of a Country to a Traveller out of his way It may bring him to his journeys end though twenty miles about it may keep him from running into the Sea and from mistaking a river for dry land but whether this little path or the other be the right away it tells not So is the analogie of Faith that is if I understand it right the rule of Faith that is the Creed Now were it not a fine device to goe to expound all the Scripture by the Creed there being in it so many thousand places which have no more relation to any Article in the Creed than they have to Tityre tu patulae Indeed if a man resolves to keep the analogie of Faith that is to expound Scripture so as not to doe any violence to any fundamental Article he shall be sure however he errs yet not to destroy Faith he shall not perish in his Exposition And that was the precept given by Saint Paul that all Prophecyings should be estimated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6.12 and to this very purpose St. Austin in his Exposition of Genesis by way of Preface sets down the Articles of Faith with this design and protestation of it that if he says nothing against those Articles though he miss the particular sence of the place there is no danger or sin in his Exposition but how that analogie of Faith should have any other influence in expounding such places in which those Articles of Faith are
in France and Carolus Molineus a great Lawyer and of the Roman Communion disputed against the reception And this is a known condition in the Canon Law but it proves plainly that the Decrees of Councils have their Authority from the voluntary submission of the particular Churches not from the prime sanction and constitution of the Council And there is great Reason it should for as the representative body of the Church derives all power from the diffusive body which is represented so it resolves into it and though it may have all the legal power yet it hath not all the natural for more able men may be unsent then sent and they who are sent may be wrought upon by stratagem which cannot happen to the whole diffusive Church It is therefore most fit that since the legal power that is the externall was passed over to the body representative yet the efficacy of it and the internall should so still remain in the diffusive as to have power to consider whether their representatives did their duty yea or no and so to proceed accordingly For unless it be in matters of justice in which the interest of a third person is concern'd no man will or can be supposed to pass away all power from himself of doing himself right in matters personall proper and of so high concernment It is most unnatural and unreasonable But besides that they are excellent instruments of peace the best humane Judicatories in the world rare Sermons for the determining a point in Controversie and the greatest probability from humane Authority besides these advantages I say I know nothing greater that general Councils can pretend to with reason and Argument sufficient to satisfie any wise man And as there was never any Council so general but it might have been more general for in respect of the whole Church even Nice it self was but a small Assembly so there is no Decree so well constituted but it may be prov'd by an Argument higher then the Authority of the Council And therefore general Councils and National and Provinciall and Diocesan in their severall degrees are excellent Guides for the Prophets and directions and instructions for their Prophesyings but not of weight and Authority to restrain their Liberty so wholly but that they may dissent when they see a reason strong enough so to persuade them as to be willing upon the confidence of that reason and their own sincerity to answer to God for such their modesty and peaceable but as they believe their necessary disagreeing SECT VII Of the Fallibility of the Pope and the uncertainty of his Expounding Scripture and resolving Questions 1. BUT since the Question between the Council and the Pope grew high there have not wanted abettors so confident on the Pope's behalf as to believe General Councils to be nothing but Pomps and Solemnities of the Catholick Church and that all the Authority of determining Controversies is formally and effectually in the Pope And therefore to appeal from the Pope to a future Council is a heresie yea and Treason too said Pope Pius II. and therefore it concerns us now to be wise and wary But before I proceed I must needs remember that Pope Pius II. while he was the wise and learned Aeneas Sylvius was very confident for the preeminence of a Council and gave a merry reason why more Clerks were for the Popes then the Council though the truth was on the other side even because the Pope gives Bishopricks and Abbeys but Councils give none and yet as soon as he was made Pope as if he had been inspired his eyes were open to see the great priviledges of S. Peter's Chair which before he could not see being amused with the truth or else with the reputation of a General Council But however there are many that hope to make it good that the Pope is the Universal and the Infallible Doctor that he breaths Decrees as Oracles that to dissent from any of his Cathedral determinations is absolute heresie the Rule of Faith being nothing else but conformity to the Chair of Peter So that here we have met a restraint of Prophecy indeed but yet to make amends I hope we shall have an infallible Guide and when a man is in Heaven he will never complain that his choice is taken from him and that he is confin'd to love and to admire since his love and his admiration is fixt upon that which makes him happy even upon God himself And in the Church of Rome there is in a lower degree but in a true proportion as little cause to be troubled that we are confin'd to believe just so and no choice left us for our understandings to discover or our wills to chuse because though we be limited yet we are pointed out where we ought to rest we are confin'd to our Center and there where our understandings will be satisfied and therefore will be quiet and where after all our strivings studies and endeavours we desire to come that is to truth for there we are secur'd to finde it because we have a Guide that is infallible If this prove true we are well enough But if it be false or uncertain it were better we had still kept our liberty then be couzened out of it with gay pretences This then we must consider 2. And here we shall be oppressed with a cloud of Witnesses For what more plain then the Commission given to Peter Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church And to thee will I give the Keys And again For thee have I prayed that thy faith fail not but thou when thou art converted confirm thy brethren And again If thou lovest me feed my sheep Now nothing of this being spoken to any of the other Apostles by one of these places S. Peter must needs be appointed Foundation or Head of the Church and by consequence he is to rule and govern all By some other of these places he is made the supreme Pastor and he is to teach and determine all and enabled with an infallible power so to do And in a right understanding of these Authorities the Fathers speak great things of the Chair of Peter for we are as much bound to believe that all this was spoken to Peter's successors as to his Person that must by all means be supposed and so did the old Doctors who had as much certainty of it as we have and no more but yet let 's hear what they have said To this Church by reason of its more powerfull principality it is necessary all Churches round about should Convene In this Tradition Apostolical always was observed and therefore to communicate with this Bishop with this Church was to be in Communion with the Church Catholick To this Church errour or perfidiousness cannot have access Against this See the gates of Hell cannot prevail For we know this Church to be built upon a Rock And whoever
Parents 9. Seventhly If the words were never so appropriate to Peter or also communicated to his Successors yet of what value will the consequent be what prerogative is entailed upon the Chair of Rome For that S. Peter was the Ministerial Head of the Church is the most that is desired to be proved by those and all other words brought for the same purposes and interests of that See Now let the Ministerial Head have what Dignity can be imagined let him be the first and in all Communities that are regular and orderly there must be something that is first upon certain occasions where an equal power cannot be exercised and made pompous or ceremonial But will this Ministerial Headship inferr an infallibility will it inferr more then the Headship of the Jewish Synagogue where clearly the High Priest was supreme in many senses yet in no sense infallible will it inferr more to us then it did amongst the Apostles amongst whom if for order's sake S. Peter was the first yet he had no compulsory power over the Apostles there was no such thing spoke of nor any such thing put in practice And that the other Apostles were by a personal privilege as infallible as himself is no reason to hinder the exercise of jurisdiction or any compulsory power over them for though in Faith they were infallible yet in manners and matter of fact as likely to erre as S. Peter himself was and certainly there might have something happened in the whole Colledge that might have been a Record of his Authority by transmitting an example of the exercise of some Judicial power over some one of them If he had but withstood any of them to their faces as S. Paul did him it had been more then yet is said in his behalf Will the Ministerial Headship inferr any more then that when the Church in a Community or a publick capacity should do any Act of Ministery Ecclesiasticall he shall be first in Order Suppose this to be a dignity to preside in Councils which yet was not always granted him suppose it to be a power of taking cognizance of the Major Causes of Bishops when Councils cannot be called suppose it a double voice or the last decisive or the negative in the causes exteriour suppose it to be what you will of dignity or externall regiment which when all Churches were united in Communion and neither the interest of States nor the engagement of opinions had made disunion might better have been acted then now it can yet this will fall infinitely short of a power to determine Controversies infallibly and to prescribe to all mens faith and consciences A Ministerial Headship or the prime Minister cannot in any capacity become the foundation of the Church to any such purpose And therefore men are causelesly amused with such premisses and are afraid of such Conclusions which will never follow from the admission of any sense of these words that can with any probability be pretended 10. Eighthly I consider that these Arguments from Scripture are too weak to support such an Authority which pretends to give Oracles and to answer infallibly in Questions of Faith because there is greater reason to believe the Popes of Rome have erred and greater certainty of demonstration then these places give that they are infallible as will appear by the instances and perpetual experiment of their being deceived of which there is no Question but of the sense of these places there is And indeed if I had as clear Scripture for their infallibility as I have against their half Communion against their Service in an unknown tongue worshipping of Images and divers other Articles I would make no scruple of believing but limit and conform my understanding to all their Dictates and believe it reasonable all Prophesying should be restrained But till then I have leave to discourse and to use my reason And to my reason it seems not likely that neither Christ nor any of his Apostles not S. Peter himself not S. Paul writing to the Church of Rome should speak the least word or tittle of the infallibility of their Bishops for it was certainly as convenient to tell us of a remedy as to foretell that certainly there must needs be heresies and need of a remedy And it had been a certain determination of the Question if when so rare an opportunity was ministred in the Question about Circumcision that they should have sent to Peter who for his infallibility in ordinary and his power of Headship would not onely with reason enough as being infallibly assisted but also for his Authority have best determined the Question if at least the first Christians had known so profitable and so excellent a secret And although we have but little Record that the first Council at Jerusalem did much observe the solennities of Law and the forms of Conciliary proceedings and the Ceremonials yet so much of it as is recorded is against them S. James and not S. Peter gave the final sentence and although S. Peter determined the Question pro libertate yet S. James made the Decree and the Assumentum too and gave sentence they should abstain from some things there mentioned which by way of temper he judged most expedient And so it passed And S. Peter shewed no sign of a Superiour Authority nothing of Superiour jurisdiction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. So that if the Question be to be determined by Scripture it must either be ended by plain places or by obscure Plain places there are none and these that are with greatest fancy pretended are expounded by Antiquity to contrary purposes But if obscure places be all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by what means shall we infallibly find the sense of them The Pope's interpretation though in all other cases it might be pretended in this cannot for it is the thing in Question and therefore cannot determine for itself Either therefore we have also another infallible guide besides the Pope and so we have two Foundations and two Heads for this as well as the other upon the same reason or else which is indeed the truth there is no infallible way to be infallibly assured that the Pope is infallible Now it being against the common condition of men above the pretences of all other Governours Ecclesiasticall against the Analogie of Scripture and the deportment of the other Apostles against the Oeconomy of the Church and S. Peter's own entertainment the presumption lies against him and these places are to be left to their prime intentions and not put upon the rack to force them to confess what they never thought 12. But now for Antiquity if that be deposed in this Question there are so many circumstances to be considered to reconcile their words and their actions that the process is more troublesome then the Argument can be concluding or the matter considerable But I shall a little consider it so far at least as to shew either Antiquity said
pleasing of men is his best reward and his not being condemned and contradicted all the possession of a Truth SECT XIV Of the practice of Christian Churches towards persons Disagreeing and when Persecution first came in AND thus this Truth hath been practised in all times of Christian Religion when there were no collateral designs on foot nor interests to be served nor passions to be satisfied In Saint Paul's time though the censure of Heresie were not so loose and forward as afterwards and all that were called Hereticks were clearly such and highly criminal yet as their crime was so was their censure that is spiritual They were first admonished once at least for so Irenaeus Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose and Hierom read that place of Titus 3. But since that time all men and at that time some read it Post unam alteram admonitionem reject a Heretick Rejection from the communion of Saints after two warnings that 's the penalty Saint John expresses it by not eating with them not bidding them God speed but the persons against whom he decrees so severely are such as denied Christ to be come in the flesh direct Antichrists And let the sentence be as high as it lists in this case all that I observe is that since in so damnable Doctrines nothing but spiritual censure separation from the communion of the faithfull was enjoyned and prescribed we cannot pretend to an Apostolicall precedent if in matters of dispute and innocent question and of great uncertainty and no malignity we should proceed to sentence of Death 2. For it is but an absurd and illiterate arguing to say that Excommunication is a greater punishment and killing a less and therefore who-ever may be excommunicated may also be put to death which indeed is the reasoning that Bellarmine uses For first Excommunication is not directly and of itself a greater punishment then corporal Death because it is indefinite and incompleat and in order to a farther punishment which if it happens then the Excommunication was the inlet to it if it does not the Excommunication did not signifie half so much as the loss of a member much less Death For it may be totally ineffectual either by the iniquity of the proceeding or repentance of the person and in all times and cases it is a medicine if the man please if he will not but perseveres in his impiety then it is himself that brings the Censure to effect that actuates the judgement and gives a sting and an energy upon that which otherwise would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly but when it is at worst it does not kill the Soul it onely consigns it to that death which it had deserved and should have received independently from that sentence of the Church Thirdly and yet Excommunication is to admirable purpose for whether it refers to the person censured or to others it is prudentiall in itself it is exemplary to others it is medicinal to all For the person censured is by this means threatned into piety and the threatning made the more energeticall upon him because by fiction of Law or as it were by a Sacramental representment the pains of hell are made presentiall to him and so becomes an act of prudent judicature and excellent discipline and the best instrument of spiritual Government because the nearer the threatning is reduced to matter and the more present and circumstantiate it is made the more operative it is upon our spirits while they are immerged in matter And this is the full sense and power of Excommunication in its direct intention consequently and accidentally other evils might follow it as in the times of the Apostles the censured persons were buffeted by Satan and even at this day there is less security even to the temporal condition of such a person whom his spiritual parents have Anathematiz'd But besides this I know no warrant to affirm any thing of Excommunication for the sentence of the Church does but declare not effect the final sentence of damnation Whoever deserves Excommunication deserves damnation and he that repents shall be saved though he die out of the Churche's externall Communion and if he does not repent he shall be damned though he was not excommunicate 3. But suppose it greater then the sentence of corporal Death yet it follows not because Hereticks may be excommunicate therefore killed for from a greater to a less in a several kinde of things the argument concludes not It is a greater thing to make an excellent discourse then to make a shoe yet he that can doe the greater cannot doe this less An Angel cannot beget a man and yet he can doe a greater matter in that kinde of operations which we term spiritual and Angelicall And if this were concluding that whoever may be excommunicate may be kill'd then because of Excommunications the Church is confessed the sole and intire Judge she is also an absolute disposer of the lives of persons I believe this will be but ill doctrine in Spain for in Bulla Coenae Domini the King of Spain is every year excommunicated on Maunday-Thursday but if by the same power he might also be put to death as upon this ground he may the Pope might with more ease be invested in that part of Saint Peter's Patrimony which that King hath invaded and surprized But besides this it were extreme harsh Doctrine in a Roman Consistory from whence Excommunications issue for trifles for fees for not suffering themselves infinitely to be oppressed for any thing if this be greater then Death how great a tyranny is that which doth more then kill men for lesse then trifles or else how inconsequent is that argument which concludes its purpose upon so false pretence and supposition 4. Well however zealous the Apostles were against Hereticks yet none were by them or their dictates put to death The death of Ananias and Sapphira and the blindness of Elymas the Sorcerer amount not to this for they were miraculous inflictions and the first was a punishment to Vow-breach and Sacrilege the second of Sorcery and open contestation against the Religion of Jesus Christ neither of them concerned the case of this present question Or if the case were the same yet the Authority is not the same For he that inflicted these punishments was infallible and of a power competent but no man at this day is so But as yet people were converted by Miracles and Preaching and Disputing and Hereticks by the same means were redargued and all men instructed none tortured for their Opinion And this continued till Christian people were vexed by disagreeing persons and were impatient and peevish by their own too much confidence and the luxuriancy of a prosperous fortune but then they would not endure persons that did dogmatize any thing which might intrench upon their reputation or their interest And it is observable that no man nor no Age did ever teach the lawfulness of putting
of that temper and expedient but either he must lose the formality of a law and neither have power coercitive nor obligatory but ad arbitrium inferiorum or else it cannot antecedently to the particular case give leave to any sort of men to disagree or disobey 5. Secondly Suppose that a Law be made with great reason so as to satisfie divers persons pious and prudent that it complies with the necessity of Government and promotes the interest of God's service and publick order it may easily be imagined that these persons which are obedient sons of the Church may be as zealous for the publick Order and Discipline of the Church as others for their opinion against it and may be as much scandalized if disobedience be tolerated as others are if the Law be exacted and what shall be done in this case Both sorts of men cannot be complied withall because as these pretend to be offended at the Law and by consequence if they understand the consequents of their own Opinion at them that obey the Law so the others are justly offended at them that unjustly disobey it If therefore there be any on the right side as confident and zealous as they who are on the wrong side then the disagreeing persons are not to be complied with to avoid giving offence for if they be offence is given to better persons and so the mischief which such complying seeks to prevent is made greater and more unjust obedience is discouraged and disobedience is legally canonized for the result of a holy and a tender Conscience 6. Thirdly Such complying with the disagreeings of a sort of men is the total overthrow of all Discipline and it is better to make no Laws of publick Worship then to rescind them in the very constitution and there can be no end in making the Sanction but to make the Law ridiculous and the Authority contemptible For to say that complying with weak Consciences in the very framing of a Law of Discipline is the way to preserve unity were all one as to say to take away all Laws is the best way to prevent disobedience In such matters of indifferency the best way of cementing the fraction is to unite the parts in the Authority for then the question is but one viz. Whether the authority must be obeyed or not But if a permission be given of disputing the particulars the Questions become next to infinite A Mirrour when it is broken represents the object mutiplied and divided but if it be entire and through one centre transmits the species to the eye the Vision is one and natural Laws are the Mirrour in which men are to dress and compose their actions and therefore must not be broken with such clauses of exception which may without remedy be abused to the prejudice of Authority and peace and all humane Sanctions And I have known in some Churches that this pretence hath been nothing but a design to discredit the Law to dismantle the Authority that made it to raise their own credit and a trophee of their zeal to make it a characteristick note of a Sect and the cognizance of holy persons and yet the men that claimed exemption from the Laws upon pretence of having weak Consciences if in hearty expression you had told them so to their heads they would have spit in your face and were so far from confessing themselves weak that they thought themselves able to give Laws to Christendome to instruct the greatest Clerks and to catechize the Church herself And which is the worst of all they who were perpetually clamourous that the severity of the Laws should slacken as to their particular and in matter adiaphorous in which if the Church hath any Authority she hath power to make Laws to indulge a leave to them to doe as they list yet were the most imperious amongst men most decretory in their sentences and most impatient of any disagreeing from them though in the least minute and particular whereas by all the justice of the world they who perswade such a compliance in matters of fact and of so little question should not deny to tolerate persons that differ in Questions of great difficulty and contestation 7. Fourthly But yet since all things almost in the world have been made matters of dispute and the will of some men and the malice of others and the infinite industry and pertinacy of contesting and resolution to conquer hath abused some persons innocently into a perswasion that even the Laws themselves though never so prudently constituted are superstitious or impious such persons who are otherwise pious humble and religious are not to be destroyed for such matters which in themselves are not of concernment to Salvation and neither are so accidentally to such men and in such cases where they are innocently abused and they erre without purpose and design And therefore if there be a publick disposition in some persons to dislike Laws of a certain quality if it be fore-seen it is to be considered in lege dicenda and whatever inconvenience or particular offence is fore-seen is either to be directly avoided in the Law or else a compensation in the excellency of the Law and certain advantages made to out-weigh their pretensions But in lege jam dicta because there may be a necessiy some persons should have a liberty indulged them it is necessary that the Governours of the Church should be intrusted with a power to consider the particular case and indulge a liberty to the person and grant personal dispensations This I say is to be done at several times upon particular instance upon singular consideration and new emergencies But that a whole kinde of men such a kinde to which all men without possibility of being confuted may pretend should at once in the very frame of the Law be permitted to disobey is to nullifie the Law to destroy Discipline and to hallow disobedience it takes away the obliging part of the Law and makes that the thing enacted shall not be enjoyn'd but tolerated onely it destroys unity and uniformity which to preserve was the very end of such laws of Discipline it bends the Rule to the thing which is to be ruled so that the Law obeys the subject not the subject the Law it is to make a Law for particulars not upon general reason and congruity against the prudence and design of all Laws in the world and absolutely without the example of any Church in Christendome it prevents no scandal for some will be scandalized at the Authority itself some at the complying and remisness of Discipline and several men at matters and upon ends contradictory All which cannot some ought not to be complied withall 8. Sixthly The summe is this The end of the Laws of Discipline are in an immediate order to the conservation and ornament of the publick and therefore the Laws must not so tolerate as by conserving persons to destroy themselves and the publick benefit but if
with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation 17. But for the Article itself We all say that Christ is there present some way or other extraordinary and it will not be amiss to worship him at that time when he gives himself to us in so mysterious a manner and with so great advantages especially since the whole Office is a consociation of divers actions of Religion and worship Now in all opinions of those men who think it an act of Religion to communicate and to offer a Divine worship is given to Christ and is transmitted to him by mediation of that action and that Sacrament and it is no more in the Church of Rome but that they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence which errour is wholly seated in the understanding and does not communicate with the will For all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of Divine adoration and that it is incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and before they venture to pass an act of adoration they believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped and they who have these thoughts are as much enemies of Idolatry as they that understand better how to avoid that inconvenience which is supposed to be the crime which they formally hate and we materially avoid This consideration was concerning the Doctrine itself 18. Secondly And now for any danger to mens persons for suffering such a Doctrine this I shall say that if they who doe it are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger that they whom they perswade to it should be guilty And what persons soever believe it to be Idolatry to worship the Sacrament while that perswasion remains will never be brought to it there is no fear of that and he that perswades them to doe it by altering their perswasions and beliefs does no hurt but altering the Opinions of the men and abusing their understandings but when they believe it to be no Idolatry then their so believing it is sufficient security from that crime which hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence onely it hath its being criminall 19. Thirdly However if it were Idolatry I think the precept of God to the Jews of killing false and idolatrous Prophets will be no warrant for Christians so to doe For in the case of the Apostles and the men of Samaria when James and John would have called for fire to destroy them even as Elias did under Moses Law Christ distinguished the spirit of Elias from his own Spirit and taught them a lesson of greater sweetness and consigned this truth to all Ages of the Church that such severity is not consistent with the meekness which Christ by his example and Sermons hath made a precept Evangelicall At most it was but a judiciall Law and no more of Argument to make it necessary to us then the Mosaicall precepts of putting Adulterers to death and trying the accused persons by the waters of jealousie 20. And thus in these two Instances I have given account what is to be done in Toleration of diversity of Opinions The result of which is principally this Let the Prince and the Secular Power have a care the Commonwealth be safe For whether such or such a Sect of Christians be to be permitted is a Question rather politicall then religious for as for the concernments of Religion these Instances have furnished us with sufficient to determine us in our duties as to that particular and by one of these all particulars may be judged 21. And now it were a strange inhumanity to permit Jews in a Commonwealth whose interest is served by their inhabitation and yet upon equal grounds of State and policy not to permit differing Sects of Christians For although possibly there is more danger mens perswasions should be altered in a commixture of divers Sects of Christians yet there is not so much danger when they are changed from Christian to Christian as if they be turned from Christian to Jew or Moor as many are daily in Spain and Portugall 22. And this is not to be excused by saying the Church hath no power over them qui forâ—s sunt as Jews are For it is true the Church in the capacity of spiritual regiments hath nothing to doe with them because they are not her Diocese yet the Prince hath to doe with them when they are subjects of his regiment They may not be Excommunicate any more then a stone may be killed because they are not of the Christian Communion but they â—re living persons parts of the Commonwealth infinitely deceived in their Religion and very dangerous if they offer to perswade men to their Opinions and are the greatest enemies of Christ whose honour and the interest of whose service a Christian Prince is bound with all his power to maintain And when the question is of punishing disagreeing persons with death the Church hath equally nothing to doe with them both for she hath nothing to doe with the temporall sword but the Prince whose subjects equally Christians and Jews are hath equal power over their persons for a Christian is no more a Subject then a Jew is the Prince hath upon them both the same power of life and death so that the Jew by being no Christian is not forâ—s or any more an exempt person for his body or his life then the Christian is And yet in all Churches where the Secular power hath temporal reason to tolerate the Jews they are tolerated without any scruple in Religion Which thing is of more consideration because the Jews are direct Blasphemers of the Son of God and Blasphemy by their own Law the Law of Moses is made capital and might with greater reason be inflicted upon them who acknowledge its obligation then urged upon Christians as an Authority enabling Princes to put them to death who are accused of accidental and consecutive Blasphemy and Idolatry respectively which yet they hate and disavow with much zeal and heartiness of perswasion And I cannot yet learn a reason why we shall not be more complying with them who are of the houshold of Faith for at least they are children though they be but rebellious children and if they were not what hath the mother to doe with them any more then with the Jews they are in some relation or habitude of the family for they are consigned with the same Baptism profess the same Faith delivered by the Apostles are erected in the same hope and look for the same glory to be revealed to them at the coming of their common Lord and Saviour to whose service according to their understanding they have vowed themselves And if the disagreeing persons be to be esteemed as Heathens and Publicans yet not worse Have no company with
only the internal so that there needs no more strength to this Argument But that there may be wanting no moments to this truth which the Holy Scripture affords I shall add more weight to it And 1. The Perpetuity of this Holy Rite appears because this great Gift of the Holy Ghost was promised to abide with the Church for ever And when the Jews heard the Apostles speak with Tongues at the first and miraculous descent of the Spirit in Pentecost to take off the strangeness of the wonder and the envy of the power S. Peter at that very time tells them plainly Repent and be Baptized every one of you and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the meanest person amongst you all but shall receive this great thing which ye observe us to have received and not only you but your Children too not your Children of this Generation only sed Natinatorum qui nascentur ab illis but your Children for ever For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even to as many as the Lord our God shall call Now then let it be considered 1. This gift is by Promise by a promise not made to the Apostles alone but to all to all for ever 2. Consider here at the very first as there is a verbum a word of promise so there is sacramentum too I use the word as I have already premonished in a large fence only and according to the style of the Primitive Church It is a Rite partly Moral partly Ceremonial the first is Prayer and the other is Laying on of the hands and to an effect that is but transient and extraordinary and of a little abode it is not easie to be supposed that such a Solemnity should be appointed I say such a Solemnity that is it is not imaginable that a solemn Rite annexed to a perpetual Promise should be transient and temporary for by the nature of Relatives they must be of equal abode The Promise is of a thing for ever the Ceremony or Rite was annexed to the Promise and therefore this also must be for ever 3. This is attested by S. Paul who reduces this Argument to this Mystery saying In whom after that ye believed signati estis Spiritu Sancto promissionis ye were sealed by that Holy Spirit of promise He spake it to the Ephesians who well understood his meaning by remembring what was done to themselves by the Apostles but a while before who after they had Baptized them did lay their hands upon them and so they were sealed and so they received the Holy Spirit of promise for here the very matter of Fact is the clearest Commentary on S. Paul's words The Spirit which was promised to all Christians they then received when they were consigned or had the Ritual seal of Confirmation by Imposition of hands One thing I shall remark here and that is that this and some other words of Scripture relating to the Sacraments or other Rituals of Religion do principally mean the Internal Grace and our consignation is by a secret power and the work is within but it does not therefore follow that the External Rite is not also intended for the Rite is so wholly for the Mystery and the Outward for the Inward and yet by the Outward God so usually and regularly gives the Inward that as no man is to rely upon the External Ministery as if the opus operatum would do the whole Duty so no man is to neglect the External because the Internal is the more principal The mistake in his particular hath caused great contempt of the Sacraments and Rituals of the Church and is the ground of the Socinian Errors in these Questions But 4. What hinders any man from a quick consent at the first representation of these plain reasonings and authorities Is it because there were extraordinary effects accompanying this Ministration and because now there are not that we will suppose the whole Oeconomy must cease If this be it and indeed this is all that can be supposed in opposition to it it is infinitely vain 1. Because these extraordinary effects did continue even after the death of all the Apostles S. Irenaeus says they did continue even to his time even the greatest instance of Miraculous power Et in fraternitate saepissime propter aliquid necessarium eâ quae est in quoquo loco Vniversâ Ecclesiâ postulante per jejunium supplicationem multam reversus est spiritus c. When God saw it necessary and the Church prayed and fasted much they did miraculous things even of reducing the spirit to a dead man 2. In the days of the Apostles the Holy Spirit did produce miraculous effects but neither always nor at all in all men Are all workers of Miracles do all speak with Tongues do all interpret can all heal No the Spirit bloweth where he listeth and as he listeth he gives Gifts to all but to some after this manner and to some after that 3. These Gifts were not necessary at all times any more than to all persons but the Promise did belong to all and was made to all and was performed to all In the days of the Apostles there was an Effusion of the Spirit of God it ran over it was for themselves and others it wet the very ground they trode upon and made it fruitful but it was not to all in like manner but there was also then and since then a Diffusion of the Spirit tanquam in pleno S. Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost he was full of faith and power The Holy Ghost was given to him to fulfil his Faith principally the working Miracles was but collateral and incident But there is also an Infusion of the Holy Ghost and that is to all and that is for ever The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withall saith the Apostle And therefore if the Grace be given to all there is no reason that the Ritual ministration of that Grace should cease upon pretence that the Spirit is not given extraordinarily 4. These extraordinary Gifts were indeed at first necessary In the beginnings always appear the sensible visions of spiritual things for their sakes who cannot receive the understanding of an incorporeal Nature that if afterward they be not so done they may be believed by those things which were already done said S. Chrysostom in the place before quoted that is these visible appearances were given at first by reason of the imperfection of the state of the Church but the greater Gifts were to abide for ever and therefore it is observable that S. Paul says that the gift of Tongues is one of the least and most useless things a mere Sign and not so much as a Sign to Believers but to Infidels and Unbelievers and before this he greatly prefers the gift of
Prophesying or Preaching which yet all Christians know does abide with the Church for ever 5. To every ordinary and perpetual Ministery at first there were extraordinary effects and miraculous consignations We find great parts of Nations converted at one Sermon Three thousand Converts came in at once Preaching of S. Peter and five thousand at another Sermon and persons were miraculously cured by the Prayer of the Bishop in his visitation of a sick Christian and Devils cast out in the conversion of a sinner and Blindness cur'd at the Baptism of S. Paul and Aeneas was healed of a Palsie at the same time he was cur'd of his Infidelity and Eutychus was restor'd to life at the Preaching of S. Paul And yet that now we see no such Extraordinaries it follows not that the Visitation of the sick and Preaching Sermons and Absolving Penitents are not ordinary and perpetual ministrations and therefore to fansy that invocation of the Holy Spirit and Imposition of hands is to cease when the extraordinary and temporary contingencies of it are gone is too trifling a fancy to be put in balance against so Sacred an Institution relying upon so many Scriptures 6. With this Objection some vain persons would have troubled the Church in S. Austin's time but he considered it with much indignation writing against the Donatists His words are these At the first times the Holy Spirit fell upon the Believers and they spake with Tongues which they had not learned according as the Spirit gave them utterance They were Signs fitted for the season for so the Holy Ghost ought to have signified in all Tongues because the Gospel of God was to run through all the Nations and Languages of the World so it was signified and so it pass'd through But is it therefore expected that they upon whom there is Imposition of hands that they might receive the Holy Ghost that they should speak with Tongues Or when we lay hands on Infants does every one of you attend to hear them speak with Tongues And when he sees that they do not speak with Tongues is any of you of so perverse a heart as to say They have not received the Holy Ghost for if they had received him they would speak with Tongues as it was done at first But if by these Miracles there is not now given any testimony of the presence of the Holy Spirit how doth any one know that he hath received the Holy Ghost Interroget cor suum Si diligit fratrem manet Spiritus Dei in illo It is true the Gift of Tongues doth not remain but all the greater Gifts of the Holy Spirit remain with the Church for ever Sanctification and Power Fortitude and Hope Faith and Love Let every man search his Heart and see if he belongs to God whether the love of God be not spread in his heart by the Spirit of God Let him see if he be not patient in Troubles comforted in his Afflictions bold to confess the Faith of Christ crucified zealous of Good works These are the miracles of Grace and the mighty powers of the Spirit according to that saying of Christ These signs shall follow them that believe In my Name shall they cast out Devils they shall speak with new Tongues they shall tread on Serpents they shall drink poison and it shall not hurt them and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall recover That which we call the Miraculous part is the less power but to cast out the Devil of Lust to throw down the Pride of Lucifer to tread on the great Dragon and to triumph over our Spiritual enemies to cure a diseased Soul to be unharmed by the poison of Temptation of evil Examples and evil Company these are the true signs that shall follow them that truly and rightly believe on the Name of the Lord Jesus this is to live in the Spirit and to walk in the Spirit this is more than to receive the Spirit to a power of Miracles and supernatural products in a natural matter For this is from a supernatural principle to receive supernatural aids to a supernatural end in the Diviner spirit of a man and this being more miraculous than the other it ought not to be pretended that the discontinuance of extraordinary Miracles should cause the discontinuance of an ordinary Ministration and this is that which I was to prove 7. To which it is not amiss to add this Observation that Simon Magus offered to buy this power of the Apostles that he also by laying on of hands might thus minister the Spirit Now he began this sin in the Christian Church and it is too frequent at this day but if all this power be gone then nothing of that sin can remain if the subject matter be removed then the appendant crime cannot abide and there can be no Simony so much as by participation and whatever is or can be done in this kind is no more of this Crime than Drunkenness is of Adultery it relates to it or may be introductive of it or be something like it But certainly since the Church is not so happy as to be intirely free from the Crime of Simony it will be hard to say that the power the buying of which was the principle of this sin and therefore the Rule of all the rest should be removed and the house stand without a foundation the relative without the correspondent the accessary without the principal and the accident without the subject This is impossible and therefore it remains that still there abides in the Church this power that by Imposition of the Hands of fit persons the Holy Ghost is ministred But this will be further cleared in the next Section SECT III. The Holy Rite of Imposition of Hands for the giving the Holy Spirit or Confirmation was actually continued and practised by all the succeeding Ages of the purest and Primitive Church NExt to the plain words of Scripture the traditive Interpretation and Practice of the Church of God is the best Argument in the World for Rituals and Mystical ministrations for the Tradition is universal and all the way acknowledged to be derived from Scripture And although in Rituals the Tradition it self if it be universal and primitive as this is were alone sufficient and is so esteemed in the Baptism of Infants in the Priests consecrating the Holy Eucharist in publick Liturgies in Absolution of Penitents the Lord's Day Communicating of Women and the like yet this Rite of Confirmation being all that and evidently derived from the practice Apostolical and so often recorded in the New Testament both in the Ritual and Mysterious part both in the Ceremony and Spiritual effect is a point of as great Certainty as it is of Usefulness and holy designation Theophilus Antiochenus lived not long after the death of S. John and he derives the name of Christian which was first given to the Disciples in his City from this Chrism or
this of Confirmation was never permitted to mere Presbyters Innocentius III a great Canonist and of great authority gives a full evidence in this particular Per frontis Chrismationem manûs Impositio designatur quia per eam Spirituâ— Sanctus per augmentum datur robur Vnde cùm caeteras unctiones simplex Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere hanc non nisi summus Sacerdos vel Presbyter valeat exhibere idest Episcopus conferre By anointing of the forehead the Imposition of hands is design'd because by that the Holy Ghost is given for increase and strength therefore when a single Priest may give the other Unctions yet this cannot be done but by the chief Priest that is the Bishop And therefore to the Question What shall be done if a Bishop may not be had the same Innocentius answers It is safer and without danger wholly to omit it than to have it rashly and without authority ministred by any other Cùm umbra quaedam ostendatur in operâ— veritas autem non subeat in essectu for it iâ— a mere shadow without truth or real effect when any one else does it but the person whom God hath appointed to this ministration And no approved man of the Church did ever say the contrary till Richard Primate of Armagh commenced a new Opinion from whence Thomas of Walden says that Wiclef borrowed his Doctrine to trouble the Church in this particular What the Doctrine of the ancient Church was in the purest times I have already I hope sufficiently declared what it was afterwards when the Ceremony of Chrism was as much remarked as the Rite to which it ministred we find fully declared by Rabanus Maurus Signatur Baptizatus cum Chrismate per Sacerdotem in Capitis summitate per Pontificem verò in Fronte ut priori Vnctione significetur Spiritùs Sancti super ipsum descensio ad habitationem Deo consecrandum in secunda quoque ut ejus Spiritûs Sancti septiformis gratia cum omni plenitudine sanctitatis scientiae virtutis venire in hominem declaretur Tunc enim ipse Spiritus Sanctus post mundata benedicta corpora atque animas liberè à Patre descendit ut unà cum sua visitatione sanctificaret illustraret nunc in hominem ad hoc venit ut Signaculum fidei quod in fronte suscepit faciat cum donis coelestibus repletum suâ gratiâ confortatum intrepidè audacter coram Regibus Potestatibus hujus seculi portare ac nomen Christi liberâ voce praedicare In Baptism the Baptized was anointed on the top of the Head in Confirmation on the Forehead by that was signified that the Holy Ghost was preparing a habitation for himself by this was declared the descent of the Holy Spirit with his seven-fold Gifts with all fulness of knowledge and spiritual understanding These things were signified by the appendant Ceremony but the Rites were ever distinguished and did not only signifie and declare but effect these Graces by the ministry of Prayer and Imposition of Hands The Ceremony the Church instituted and us'd as she pleas'd and gave in what circumstances they would chuse and new propositions entred and customs chang'd and deputations were made and the Bishops in whom by Christ was plac'd the fulness of Ecclesiastical power concredited to the Priests and Deacons so much as their occasions and necessities permitted and because in those ages and places where the external Ceremony was regarded it may be more than the inward Mystery or the Rite of Divine appointment they were apt to believe that the Chrism or exterior Unction delegated to the Priests Ministery after the Episcopal consecration of it might supply the want of Episcopal Confirmation it came to pass that new opinions were enterâ—ain'd and the Regulars the Friers and the Jesuits who were always too little friends to the Episcopal power from which they would fain have been wholly exempted publickly taught in England especially that Chrism ministred by them with leave from the Pope did do all that which ordinarily was to be done in Episcopal Confirmation For as Tertullian complain'd in his time Quibus fuit propositum aliter docendi eoâ— necessitas coegit aliter disponendi instrumenta Doctrinae They who had purposes of teaching new Doctrines were constrain'd otherwise to dispose of the Instruments and Rituals appertaining to their Doctrines These men to serve ends destroyed the Article and overthrew the ancient Discipline and Unity of the Primitive Church But they were justly censur'd by the Theological Faculty at Paris and the Censure well defended by Hallier one of the Doctors of the Sorbon whither I refer the Reader that is curious in little things But for the main It was ever call'd Confirmatio Episcopalis impositio manuum Episcoporum which our English word well expresses and perfectly retains the use we know it by the common name of Bishopping of Children I shall no farther insist upon it only I shall observe that there is a vain distinction brought into the Schools and Glosses of the Canon Law of a Minister ordinary and extraordinary all allowing that the Bishop is appointed the ordinary Minister of Confirmation but they would fain innovate and pretend that in some cases others may be Ministers extraordinary This device is of infinite danger to the destruction of the whole Sacred Order of the Ministery and disparks the inclosures and lays all in common and makes men supreme controllers of the Orders of God and relies upon a false Principle for in true Divinity and by the Oeconomy of the Spirit of God there can be no Minister of any Divine Ordinance but he that is of Divine appointment there can be none but the ordinary Minister I do not say that God is tied to this way he cannot be tied but by himself and therefore Christ gave a special Commission to Ananias to baptize and to confirm S. Paul and he gave the Spirit to Cornelius even before he was baptized and he ordained S. Paul to be an Apostle without the ministery of man But this I say That though God can make Ministers extraordinary yet Man cannot and they that go about to do so usurp the Power of Christ and snatch from his hand what he never intended to part with The Apostles admitted others into a part of their care and of their power but when they intended to imploy them in any ministery they gave them so much of their Order as would enable them but a person of a lower Order could never be deputed Minister of actions appropriate to the higher which is the case of Confirmation by the Practice and Tradition of the Apostles and by the Universal Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Catholick Church by which Bishops only the Successors of the Apostles were alone the Ministers of Confirmation and therefore if any man else usurp it let them answer it they do hurt indeed to themselves but no benefit to others to whom
they minister shadows instead of substances SECT V. The whole Procedure or Ritual of Confirmation is by Prayer and Imposition of Hands THE Heart and the Eye are lift up to God to bring Blessings from him and so is the Hand too but this also falls upon the People and rests there to apply the descending Blessing to the proper and prepared suscipient God governed the People of Israel by the hand of Moses and Aaron calidae fecêre silentia turbae Majestate manûs And both under Moses and under Christ when-ever the President of Religion did bless the People he lifted up his Hand over the Congregation and when he blessed a single Person he laid his Hand upon him This was the Rite used by Jacob and the Patriarchs by Kings and Prophets by all the eminently Religious in the Synagogue and by Christ himself when he blessed the Children which were brought to him and by the Apostles when they blessed and confirmed the baptized Converts and whom else can the Church follow The Apostles did so to the Christians of Samaria to them of Ephesus and S. Paul describes this whole mystery by the Ritual part of it calling it the Foundation of the Imposition of hands It is the solemnity of Blessing and the solemnity and application of Paternal prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Clement of Alexandria Upon whom shall he lay his hands whom shall he bless Quidenim aliud est Impositio manuum nisi Oratio super hominem said S. Austin The Bishop's laying his hands on the People what is it but the solemnity of Prayer for them that is a prayer made by those Sacred persons who by Christ are appointed to pray for them and to bless in his Name and so indeed are all the Ministeries of the Church Baptism Consecration of the B. Eucharist Absolution Ordination Visitation of the Sick they are all in genere Orationis they are nothing but solemn and appointed Prayer by an intrusted and a gracious Person specificated by a proper order to the end of the blessing then designed And therefore when S. James commanded that the sick Persons should send for the Elders of the Church he adds and let them pray over them that is lay their hands on the sick and pray for them that is praying over them It is adumbratio dextrae as Tertullian calls it the right hand of him that ministers over-shadows the person for whom the solemn Prayer is to be made This is the Office of the Rulers of the Church for they in the Divine Eutaxy are made your Superiors they are indeed your servants for Jesus sake but they are over you in the Lord and therefore are from the Lord appointed to bless the People for without contradiction saith the Apostle the less is blessed of the greater that is God hath appointed the Superiors in Religion to be the great Ministers of Prayer he hath made them the gracious Persons them he will hear those he hath commanded to convey your needs to God and God's blessings to you and to ask a blessing is to desire them to pray for you them I say whom God most respecteth for their piety and zeal that way or else regardeth for that their place and calling bindeth them above others to do this duty such as are Natural and Spiritual Fathers It is easie for prophane persons to deride these things as they do all Religion which is not conveyed to them by sense or natural demonstrations but the Oeconomy of the Spirit and the things of God are spiritually discerned The Spirit bloweth where it listeth and no man knows whence it comes and whither it goes and the Operations are discerned by Faith and received by Love and by Obedience Date mihi Christianum intelligit quod dico None but true Christians understand and feel these things But of this we are sure that in all the times of Mose's Law while the Synagogue was standing and in all the days of Christianity so long as men loved Religion and walked in the Spirit and minded the affairs of their Souls to have the Prayers and the Blessing of the Fathers of the Synagogue and the Fathers of the Church was esteemed no small part of their Religion and so they went to Heaven But that which I intend to say is this That Prayer and Imposition of Hands was the whole procedure in the Christian Rites and because this Ministery was most signally performed by this Ceremony and was also by S. Paul called and noted by the name of the Ceremony Imposition of hands this name was retained in the Christian Church and this manner of ministring Confirmation was all that was in the commandment or institution But because in Confirmation we receive the Unction from above that is then we are most signally made Kings and Priests unto God to offer up spiritual sacrifices and to enable us to seek the Kingdom of God and the Righteousness of it and that the giving of the Holy Spirit is in Scripture called the Vnction from above the Church of God in early Ages made use of this Allegory and passed it into an External Ceremony and Representation of the Mystery to signifie the Inward Grace Post inscripta oleo frontis signacula per quae Vnguentum Regale datum est Chrisma perenne We are consigned on the Fore-head with Oil and a Royal Unction and an Eternal Chrism is given to us so Prudentius gives testimony of the ministery of Confirmation in his time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said S. Cyril Preserve this Unction pure and spotless for it teaches you all things as you have heard the blessed S. John speaking and philosophizing many things of this holy Chrism Upon this account the H. Fathers used to bless and consecrate Oil and Balsam that by an External Signature they might signifie the Inward Unction effected in Confirmation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Chrism is not simple or common when it is blessed but the gift of Christ and the presence of his H. Spirit as it were effecting the Divinity it self the body is indeed anointed with visible Ointment but is also sanctified by the holy and quickning Spirit so S. Cyril I find in him and in some late Synods other pretty significations and allusions made by this Ceremony of Chrisms Nos autem pro igne visibili qui die Pentecostes super Apostolos apparuit oleum sanctum materiam nempe ignis ex Apostolorum traditione ad confirmandum adhibemus This using of Oil was instead of the Baptism with Fire which Christ baptized his Apostles with in Pentecost and Oil being the most proper matter of Fire is therefore used in Confirmation That this was the ancient Ceremony is without doubt and that the Church had power to do so hath no question and I add it was not unreasonable for if ever the Scripture expresses the mysteriousness of a Grace conferred by an Exterior ministery as this is by
God the Father and the holy Trinity to the great dishonour of that Sacred mystery against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church against the express doctrine of Scripture against the honour of a Divine Attribute I mean the Immensity and Spirituality of the Divine Nature You are gone to a Church that pretends to be Infallible and yet is infinitely deceived in many particulars and yet endures no contradiction and is impatient her children should enquire into any thing her Priests obtrude You are gone from receiving the whole Sacrament to receive it but half from Christ's Institution to a humane invention from Scripture to uncertain Traditions and from ancient Traditions to new pretences from Prayers which ye understood to Prayers which ye understand not from confidence in God to rely upon creatures from intire dependence upon inward acts to a dangerous temptation of resting too much in outward ministeries in the external work of Sacraments and of Sacramentals You are gone from a Church whose worshipping is Simple Christian and Apostolical to a Church where mens consciences are loaden with a burden of Ceremonies greater than that in the days of the Jewish Religion for the Ceremonial of the Church of Rome is a great Book in Folio greater I say than all the Ceremonies of the Jews contained in Leviticus c. You are gone from a Church where you were exhorted to read the Word of God the holy Scriptures from whence you found instruction institution comfort reproof a treasure of all excellencies to a Church that seals up that Fountain from you and gives you drink by drops out of such Cisterns as they first make and then stain and then reach out And if it be told you that some men abuse Scripture it is true For if your Priests had not abused Scripture they could not thus have abused you But there is no necessity they should and you need not unless you list any more than you need to abuse the Sacraments or decrees of the Church or the messages of your friend or the Letters you receive or the Laws of the Land all which are liable to be abused by evil persons but not by good people and modest understandings It is now become a part of your Religion to be ignorant to walk in blindness to believe the man that hears your Confessions to hear none but him not to hear God speaking but by him and so you are liable to be abused by him as he please without remedy You are gone from us where you were only taught to worship God through Jesus Christ and now you are taught to worship Saints and Angels with a worship at least dangerous and in some things proper to God For your Church worships the Virgin Mary with burning Incense and Candles to her and you give her Presents which by the consent of all Nations used to be esteemed a Worship peculiar to God and it is the same thing which was condemned for Heresie in the Collyridians who offered a Cake to the Virgin Mary A Candle and a Cake make no difference in the worship and your joyning God and the Saints in your worship and devotions is like the device of them that fought for King and Parliament the latter destroys the former I will trouble you with no more particulars because if these move you not to consider better nothing can But yet I have two things more to add of another nature one of which at least may prevail upon you whom I suppose to have a tender and a religious Conscience The first is That all the points of difference between us and your Church are such as do evidently serve the ends of Covetousness and Ambition of Power and Riches and so stand vehemently suspected of design and art rather than truth of the Article and designs upon Heaven I instance in the Popes power over Princes and all the World His power of dispensation The exemption of the Clergy from jurisdiction of Princes The doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences which was once made means to raise a portion for a Lady the Neece of Pope Leo the Tenth The Priests power advanced beyond authority of any warrant from Scripture a doctrine apt to bring absolute obedience to the Papacy But because this is possibly too nice for you to suspect or consider that which I am sure ought to move you is this That you are gone to a Religion in which though through God's grace prevailing over the follies of men there are I hope and charitably suppose many pious men that love God and live good lives yet there are very many doctrines taught by your men which are very ill friends to a good life I instance in your Indulgences and Pardons in which vicious men put a great confidence and rely greatly upon them The doctrine of Purgatory which gives countenance to a sort of Christians who live half to God and half to the world and for them this doctrine hath found out a way that they may go to Hell and to Heaven too The Doctrine that the Priests absolution can turn a trifling Repentance into a perfect and a good and that suddenly too and at any time even on our death-bed or the minute before our death is a dangerous heap of falshoods and gives licence to wicked people and teaches men to reconcile a wicked debauched life with the hopes of Heaven And then for Penances and temporal satisfaction which might seem to be as a plank after the shipwrack of the duty of Repentance to keep men in awe and to preserve them from sinking in an Ocean of Impiety it comes to just nothing by your doctrine for there are so many easie ways of Indulgences and getting Pardons so many Con-fraternities Stations priviledg'd Altars little Offices Agnus Dei's Amulets Hallowed devices Swords Roses Hats Church-yards and the fountain of these annexed Indulgences the Pope himself and his power of granting what and when and to whom he list that he is a very unfortunate man that needs to smart with penances and after all he may chuse to suffer any at all for he may pay them in Purgatory if he please and he may come out of Purgatory upon reasonable terms in case he should think it fit to go thither So that all the whole duty of Repentance seems to be destroyed with devices of men that seek power and gain and find error and folly insomuch that if I had a mind to live an evil Life and yet hope for Heaven at last I would be of your Religion above any in the world But I forget I am writing a Letter I shall therefore desire you to consider upon the Promises which is the safer way For surely it is lawful for a man to serve God without Images but that to worship Images is lawful is not so sure It is lawful to pray to God alone to confess him to be true and every man a lyar to call no man Master upon Earth but to rely upon God
teaching us But it is at least hugely disputable and not at all certain that any man or society of men can be infallible that we may put our trust in Saints in certain extraordinary Images or burn Incense and offer consumptive oblations to the Virgin Mary or make Vows to persons of whose state or place or capacities or condition we have no certain revelation We are sure we do well when in the holy Communion we worship God and Jesus Christ our Saviour but they who also worship what seems to be Bread are put to strange shifts to make themselves believe it to be lawful It is certainly lawful to believe what we see and feel but it is an unnatural thing upon pretence of faith to disbelieve our eyes when our sense and our faith can better be reconciled as it is in the question of the Real Presence as it is taught by the Church of England So that unless you mean to prefer a danger before safety temptation to unholiness before a severe and a holy Religion Unless you mean to lose the benefit of your Prayers by praying what you perceive not and the benefit of the Sacrament in great degrees by falling from Christ's institution and taking half instead of all Unless you desire to provoke God to jealousie by Images and Man to jealousie in professing a Religion in which you may in many cases have leave to forfeit your faith and lawful trust Unless you will still continue to give scandal to those good people with whom you have lived in a common Religion and weaken the hearts of God's afflicted ones Unless you will chuse a Catechism without the Second Commandment and a Faith that grows bigger or less as men please and a Hope that in many degrees relies on men and vain confidences and a Charity that damns all the World but your selves Unless you will do all this that is suffer an abuse in your Prayers in the Sacrament in the Commandments in Faith in Hope in Charity in the Communion of Saints and your duty to your Supreme you must return to the bosom of your Mother the Church of England from whence you have fallen rather weakly than maliciously and I doubt not but you will find the Comfort of it all your Life and in the Day of your Death and in the Day of Judgment If you will not yet I have freed mine own Soul and done an act of Duty and Charity which at least you are bound to take kindly if you will not entertain it obediently Now let me add this That although most of these Objections are such things which are the open and avowed doctrines or practices of your Church and need not to be proved as being either notorious or confessed yet if any of your Guides shall seem to question any thing of it I will bind my self to verifie it to a tittle and in that too which I intend them that is so as to be an Objection obliging you to return under the pain of folly or heresie or disobedience according to the subject matter And though I have propounded these things now to your consideration yet if it be desired I shall represent them to your eye so that even your self shall be able to give sentence in the behalf of Truth In the mean time give me leave to tell you of how much folly you are guilty in being moved by such mock-arguments as your men use when they meet with women and tender consciences and weaker understandings The first is Where was your Church before Luther Now if you had called upon them to speak something against your Religion from Scripture or right Reason or Universal Tradition you had been secure as a Tortoise in her shell a Cart pressed with Sheaves could not have oppressed your cause or person though you had confessed you understood nothing of the mysteries of succession doctrinal or personal For if we can make it appear that our Religion was that which Christ and his Apostles taught let the Truth suffer what Eclipses or prejudices can be supposed let it be hid like the holy fire in the captivity yet what Christ and his Apostles taught us is eternally true and shall by some means or other be conveyed to us even the enemies of Truth have been conservators of that Truth by which we can confute their Errors But if you still ask where it was before Luther I answer it was there where it was after even in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and I know no warrant for any other Religion And if you will expect I should shew any Society of men who professed all the doctrines which are now expressed in the Confession of the Church of England I shall tell you it is unreasonable because some of our Truths are now brought into our publick Confessions that they might be oppos'd against your Errors before the occasion of which there was no need of any such Confessions till you made many things necessary to be professed which are not lawful to be believed For if we believe your superinduc'd follies we shall do unreasonably unconscionably and wickedly but the questions themselves are so useless abstracting from the accidental necessity which your follies have brought upon us that it had been happy if we had never heard of them more than the Saints and Martyrs did in the first Ages of the Church But because your Clergy have invaded the liberty of the Church and multiplied the dangers of damnation and pretend new necessities and have introduc'd new Articles and affright the simple upon new pretensions and slight the very institution and the Commands of Christ and of the Apostles and invent new Sacramentals constituting Ceremonies of their own head and promise grace along with the use of them as if they were not Ministers but Lords of the Spirit and teach for doctrines the commandments of men and make void the Commandment of God by their tradition and have made a strange Body of Divinity therefore it is necessary that we should immure our Faith by the refusal of such vain and superstitious dreams but our Faith was completed at first it is no other than that which was delivered to the Saints and can be no more for ever So that it is a foolish demand to require that we should shew before Luther a Systeme of Articles declaring our sence in these questions It was long before they were questions at all and when they were made questions they remained so a long time and when by their several pieces they were determined this part of the Church was oppressed with a violent power and when God gave opportunity then the yoke was broken and this is the whole progress of this affair But if you will still insist upon it then let the matter be put into equal balances and let them shew any Church whose Confession of Faith was such as was obtruded upon you at Trent and if your Religion be Pius Quartus his Creed
hope well of you have a fulness of assurance of the truth and certainty of our own way and however you can please your selves with Images of things as having no firm footing for your trifling confidence yet you can never with your tricks out-face us of just and firm adherencies and if you were not empty of supports and greedy of bulrushes snatching at any thing to support your sinking cause you would with fear and trembling consider the direct dangers which we demonstrate to you to be in your Religion rather than flatter your selves with collateral weak and deceitful hopes of accidental possibilities that some of you may escape 4. If we be more charitable to you than you are to us acknowledge in us the beauty and essential form of Christian Religion be sure you love as well as make use of our charity But if you make our charity an argument against us remember that you render us evil in exchange for good and let it be no brag to you that you have not that charity to us For therefore the Donatists were condemned for Hereticks and Schismaticks because they damn'd all the world and afforded no charity to any that was not of their Communion 5. But that our charity may be such indeed that is that it may do you a real benefit and not turn into Wormwood and Coloquintids I pray take notice in what sence it is that we allow Salvation may possibly be had in your Church We warrant it not to any we only hope it for some we allow it to them as to the Sadduces in the Law and to the Corinthians in the Gospel who denied the Resurrection that is till they were sufficiently instructed and competently convinced and had time and powers to out-wear their prejudices and the impresses of their education and long perswasion But to them amongst you who can and do consider and yet determine for error and interest we have a greater charity even so much as to labour and pray for their conversion but not so much fondness as to flatter them into boldness and pertinacious adherencies to matters of so great danger 6. But in all this affair though your men are very bold with God and leap into his Judgment-seat before him and give wild sentences concerning the Salvation of your own party and the Damnation of all that disagree yet that which is our charity to you is indeed the fear of God and the reverence of his judgments We do not say that all Papists are certainly damn'd we wish and desire vehemently that none of you may perish But then this charity of judgment relates not to you nor is derived from any probability which we see in your doctrines that differ from ours But because we know not what rate and value God puts upon the Article It concerns neither you nor us to say this or that man shall be damn'd for his opinion For besides that this is a bold intrusion into that secret of God which shall not be opened till the day of Judgment and besides that we know not what allays and abatements are to be made by the good meaning and the ignorance of the man all that can concern us is to tell you that you are in error that you depart from Scripture that you exercise tyranny over souls that you leave the Divine institution and prevaricate God's Commandment that you divide the Church without truth and without necessity that you tie men to believe things under pain of damnation which cannot be made very probable much less certain and therefore that you sin against God and are in danger of his eternal displeasure But in giving the final sentence as we have no more to do than your men have yet so we refuse to follow your evil example and we follow the glorious precedent of our Blessed Lord who decreed and declared against the crime but not against the Criminal before the day He that does this or that is in danger of the Council or in danger of judgment or liable and obnoxious to the danger of Hell fire So we say of your greatest Errors they put you in the danger of perishing but that you shall or shall not perish we leave it to your Judge and if you call this Charity it is well I am sure it is Piety and the fear of God 7. Whether you may be saved or whether you shall be damned for your errors does neither depend upon our affirmative not your negative but according to the rate and value which God sets upon things Whatever we talk things are as they are not as we dispute or grant or hope and therefore it were well if your men would leave abusing you and themselves with these little arts of indirect support For many men that are warranted yet do eternally perish and you in your Church damn millions who I doubt not shall reign with Jesus eternally in the Heavens 8. I wish you would consider that if any of our men say Salvation may be had in your Church it is not for the goodness of your new Propositions but only because you do keep so much of that which is our Religion that upon the confidence of that we hope well concerning you And we do not hope any thing at all that is good of you or your Religion as it distinguishes from us and ours We hope that the good which you have common with us may obtain pardon directly or indirectly or may be an Antidote of the venome and an Amulet against the danger of your very great Errors So that if you can derive any confidence from our concession you must remember where it takes root not upon any thing of yours but wholly upon the excellency of ours You are not at all safe or warranted for being Papists but we hope well of some of you for having so much of the Protestant and if that will do you any good proceed in it and follow it whithersoever it leads you 9. The safety that you dream of which we say to be on your side is nothing of allowance or warranty but a hope that is collateral indirect and relative We do not say any thing whereby you can conclude yours to be safer than ours for it is not safe at all but extremely dangerous We affirm those errors in themselves to be damnable some to contain in them Impiety some to have Sacriledge some Idolatry some Superstition some practices to be conjuring and charming and very like to Witchcraft as in your hallowing of Water and baptizing Bells and exorcising Demoniacks and what safety there can be in these or what you can fancy we should allow to you I suppose you need not boast of Now because we hope some are saved amongst you you must not conclude yours to be safe for our hope relies upon this There are many of your Propositions in which we differ from you that thousands amongst you understand and know nothing of it is to them as if they were
Scripture both for the confirmation of good things and also for the reproof of the evil S. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. 12. Illuminat saith Attend not to my inventions for you may possibly be deceiv'd but trust no word unless thou dost learn it from the Divine Scriptures and in Catech. 4. Illum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For it behoves us not to deliver so much as the least thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Divine and holy mysteries of Faith without the Divine Scriptures nor to be moved with probable discourses Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is derived not from witty inventions but from the demonstration of Divine Scriptures Omne quod loquimur debemus affirmare de Scripturis Sanctis so S. Hierom in Psal. 89. And again Hoc quia de Scripturis authoritatem non habet eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ probatur in Matth. 23. Si quid dicitur absque Scripturâ auditorum cogitatio claudicat So S. Chrysostom in Psal. 95. Homil. Theodoret Dial. 1. cap. 6. brings in the Orthodox Christian saying to Eranistes Bring not to me your Logismes and Syllogismes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I rely only upon Scriptures I could reckon very very many more both elder and later and if there be any Universal Tradition consigned to us by the Universal Testimony of Antiquity it is this that the Scriptures are a perfect repository of all the Will of God of all the Faith of Christ and this I will engage my self to make very apparent to you and certain against any opposer Upon the supposition of which it follows that whatever the Church of Rome obtrudes as necessary to Salvation and an Article of Faith that is not in Scripture is an Innovation in matter of Faith and a Tyranny over Consciences which whosoever submits to prevaricates the rule of the Apostle commanding us that we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ hath set us free To the other Question Whether an Ecclesiastical Tradition be of equal authority with Divine I answer Negatively And I believe I shall have no adversary in it except peradventure some of the Jesuited Bigots An Ecclesiastical Tradition viz. a positive constitution of the Church delivered from hand to hand is in the power of the Church to alter but a Divine is not Ecclesiastical Traditions in matters of Faith there are none but what are also Divine as for Rituals Ecclesiastical descending by Tradition they are confessedly alterable but till they be altered by abrogation or desuetude or contrary custom or a contrary reason or the like they do oblige by vertue of that Authority whatsoever it is that hath power over you I know not what Mr. G. did say but I am confident they who reported it of him were mistaken He could not say or mean what is charged upon him I have but two things more to speak to One is you desire me to recite what else might impede your compliance with the Roman Church I answer Truth and Piety hinder you For you must profess the belief of many false propositions and certainly believe many Uncertain things and be uncharitable to all the world but your own party and make Christianity a faction and you must yield your reason a servant to man and you must plainly prevaricate an institution of Christ and you must make an apparent departure from the Church in which you received your Baptism and the Spirit of God if you go over to Rome But Sir I refer you to the two Letters I have lately published at the end of my Discourse of Friendship and I desire you to read my Treatise of the Real Presence and if you can believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation you can put off your reason and your sense and your religion and all the instruments of Credibility when you please and these are not little things In these you may perish an error in these things is practical but our way is safe as being upon the defence and intirely resting upon Scripture and the Apostolical Churches The other thing I am to speak to is the report you have heard of my inclinations to go over to Rome Sir that party which needs such lying stories for the support of their Cause proclaim their Cause to be very weak or themselves to be very evil Advocates Sir be confident they dare not tempt me to do so and it is not the first time they have endeavoured to serve their ends by saying such things of me But I bless God for it it is perfectly a Slander and it shall I hope for ever prove so Sir if I may speak with you I shall say very many things more for your confirmation Pray to God to guide you and make no change suddenly For if their way be true to day it will be so to morrow and you need not make haste to undo your self Sir I wish you a setled mind and a holy Conscience and that I could serve you in the capacity of Your very Loving Friend and Servant in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Munday Jan. 11. 1657. THE SECOND LETTER SIR I Perceive that you are very much troubled and I see also that you are in great danger but that also troubles me because I see they are little things and very weak and fallacious that move you You propound many things in your Letter in the same disorder as they are in your Conscience to all which I can best give answers when I speak with you to which because you desire I invite you and promise you a hearty endeavour to give you satisfaction in all your material inquiries Sir I desire you to make no haste to change in case you be so miserable as to have it in your thoughts for to go over to the Church of Rome is like death there is no recovery from thence without a Miracle because Unwary souls such are they who change from us to them are with all the arts of wit and violence strangely entangled and ensur'd when they once get the prey Sir I thank you for the Paper you inclosed The men are at a loss they would fain say something against that Book but know not what Sir I will endeavour if you come to me to restore you to peace and quiet and if I cannot effect it yet I will pray for it and I am sure God can To his Mercy I commend you and rest Your very affectionate Friend in our Blessed Lord JER TAYLOR Febr. 1. 1657 8. THE THIRD LETTER SIR THE first Letter which you mention in this latter of the 10 th of March I received not I had not else failed to give you an answer I was so wholly unknowing of it that I did not understand your Servant's meaning when he came to require an answer But to your Question which you now propound I answer
n. 22. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. Church Neither it alone nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by substitution ibid. No Church-presidency ever given to the Laiety 114 § 36. Whether secular power can give prohibitions against the power of the Church 122. § 36. A Church in the opinion of Antiquity could not subsist without Bishops 148 § 45. The Church did always forbid Clergy-men to seek after secular imployments 157 § 49. and to intermeddle with them for base ends 158 § 49. The Church prohibiting secular imployment to Clergy-men does it gradu impedimenti 159 § 49. The Canons of the Church do as much forbid houshold-cares as secular imployment 160 § 49. Lay-Elders never had authority in the Church 165 § 51. What the Church signifieth 382 383. Wicked men are not true members of it 383. In what sense Saint Paul calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth 386 387. What truth that is of which the Church is the pillar 387. Whether the representative Church be infallible 389. The word Church is never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Of the meaning of that of our Lord Tell the Church 389. Of the notes of the Church 402. Scripture is more credible then the Church 407. Some rites which the Apostles injoyned the Christian Church does not now practise 430. The Primitive Church affirmed but few things to be necessary to salvation 436. The Roman is not the Mother of all Churches 449. The authority of the Church of Rome they teach is greater then that of the Scripture 450. When in the question between the Church and the Scripture they distinguish between authority quoad nos in se it salves not the difficulty 451. Eckius's pitiful Argument to prove the authority of the Church to be above the Scripture 451. The Church is such a Judge of Controversies that they must all be decided before you can find him 1012. Success and worldly prosperity no note of the true Church 1018. Clemens Alexandrinus His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. In Vossius his opinion he understood not original sin 759 n. 20. Clergy The word Church never used in Scripture for the Clergy alone 389. Clinicks Objections against the repentance of Clinicks 678 n. 57. and 677 n. 56. and 679 n. 64. Heathens newly baptized if they die immediately need no other repentance ibid. The objection concerning the Thief on the Cross answered 681 n. 65. Testimonies of the Ancients against the repentance of Clinicks 682 n. 66. The way of treating sinners who repent not till their death-bed 695 n. 25. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of Clinicks 696 n. 29. What hopes penitent Clinicks have according to the opinion of the Fathers of the Church 696 697 n. 30. The manner how the ancient Church treated penitent Clinicks 699 n. 5. The particular acts and parts of repentance that are fittest for a dying man 700 n. 32. The practice of the Primitive Fathers about penitent Clinicks 804. The repentance of Clinicks 853 n. 96. Colossians Chap. 2.18 explained 781 n. 31. Commandment Of the difference between S. Augustine and S. Hierome in the proposition about the possibility of keeping God's Commandments 579 n. 30. Communicate To doe it in act or desire are not terms opposite but subordinate 190 § 3. Commutations When they were first set up 292. Amends may be made for some sins by a commutation of duties 648 68. Comparative Instances in Texts of Scripture wherein comparative and restrained negatives are set down in an absolute form 229 § 10. Concupiscence It is not a mortal sin till it proceeds farther 776 n. 20. It is an evil but not a sin 734 n. 84. It is not wholly an effect of Adam's sin 752 n. 11. Natural inclinations are but sins of infirmity 789 n. 50. Where it is not consented to it is no sin 752 n. 11. and 765 n. 30. and 767 n. 39. and 898 907 909 911 912 876. The natural inclination to evil that is in every man is not sin 766 n. 32. It is not original sin 911. The inconstancy of S. Augustine about it 913. Confession According to the Roman doctrine Confession does not restrain sin and quiets not the Conscience 315 § 2. c. 2. A right confesfession according to the Roman Doctrine is not possible 316 § 3. The seal of Confession they will not suffer to be broken if it be to save the life of the Prince or the whole State 343 c. 3. § 2. The Roman doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Nectarius abolished the custome of having sins published in the Church 474 488 492. That the seal of confession is broken among them upon divers great occasions 475. Whether to confess all our great sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. Of the harmony of Confession made by the Reformed 899. Nothing of auricular confession to a Priest in Scripture 479. There is no Ecclesiastical Tradition for auricular confession 491. Auricular confession made an instrument to carry on unlawful plots 488 489. Father Arnold Confessor to Lewis XIII of France did cause the King in private confession to take such an oath as did in a manner depose him 489. Auricular confession leaves behind it an eternal scruple upon the Conscience 489. Auricular confession is an instance of the Romanists teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 477. Confession is a necessary act of repentance 830 n. 34. It is due to God 831. Why we are to confess sins to God who knoweth them before 832 n. 37. What properly is meant by it ibid. Auricular confession whence it descended 833 41. Confession to a Priest is no part of contrition ibid. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834. Rules concerning the practice of confession 854 n. 100. Shame should not hinder confession 855 n. 104. A rule to be observed by the Minister that receiveth confession 856 n. 105. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857 n. 109. Confession in preparation to the Sacrament 857 n. 110. Confirmation It was not to expire with the age of the Apostles 53 § 8. Photius was the first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The words Signator consignat in those Texts of the Fathers that are usually alledged against Confirmation by Bishops alone signifie Baptismal unction 110 § 33. The great benefit and need of the rite of Confirmation in the Church Ep. ded to that Treatise pag. 2. The Latine Church would have sold the title of Confirmation to the Greek but they would not buy it Ep. ded pag. 5. The Papists hold Confirmation to be a Sacrament and yet not necessary 3. b. That it is a Divine Ordinance 3 4. b. Of the necessity of
Pope Nicholas II. defined the Capernaitical sense of Transubstantiation 992 n. 10. Gregory Nazianzen's opinion concerning Episcopal Councils in his time 993. Creed The Ephesine Council did decree against enlarging Creeds 290 c. 1. § 2. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new Articles as necessarily to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Article of Christ's descent into Hell omitted in some Creeds 440. What stir it made in the Primitive Church to add but one word to the Creed though it were done onely by way of Explication 440. The Fathers complained of the dismal troubles in the Church upon enlarging Creeds 441. The addition to the Creed at Nice produced above thirty explicative Creeds soon after 441. The Councils of Nice and Chalcedon did decree against enlarging Creeds 441. They did not forbid onely things contrary but even explicative additions 441 442. The imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius considered and the argument from it answered 443. The sense of that Article in the Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church 448. The Romanists have corrupted the Creed by restraining that Article to the Roman Church 448. The end of making Creeds 942 n. 7. and 960 n. 30. They are the standard by which Heresie is tried 957 n. 22. The article of Christ's descent into Hell was not in the ancient copies of the Creed 943 n. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How this word is sometimes used in Scripture 885 887 888 889 902. Saint Cyprian His authorities alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in governing the Church answered 145 146 § 44. He did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. A Text of Saint Cyprian contrary to the Supremacy of Saint Peter's successors 155 § 48. His authority against Transubstantiation 258 § 12. The Sermons de coena Domini usually imputed to him are not his but seem to be the works of Arnoldus de Bona villa 680 n. 64. and 259 § 1◠He affirms that Pope Steven had not superiority of power over Bishops of forrein Dioceses 310. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Saint Cyprian against Purgatory 513 514. His testimony for Infant-baptism 760 n. 21 22. He for his errour about rebaptization was no heretick but his Scholars were 957 958 n. 22. When Pope Stephen excommunicated him Saint Cyprian was thought the better Catholick 957 n. 22. Cyril His testimony alledged that the bread in the Eucharist is not bread answered fully 229 § 10. His testimony against the worship of Images 306. D. Damnation HOW this word and the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are sometimes used in Scripture 885 898 902. Deacon He might in the ancient Church give absolution 484. Death How to treat a dying man being in despair 677 n. 56. In Spain they execute not a condemned criminal till his Confessour give him a bene discessit 678 n. 56. Deathbed-repentance How secure and easie some make it 567. Delegation Saint Paul made delegation of his power 163 § 50. Other examples of like delegation 164 § 50. Demonstration Silhon thinks a moral Demonstration to be the best way of proving the immortality of the soul 357. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as demonstration where there is no shew of reason against it 362. Of moral demonstration what it is 368 369. Despair A caution to be observed by them that minister comfort to those that are nigh to despair 852 n. 95. and 677. Considerations to be opposed against the despair of penitent Clinicks 696 n. 29. Devil The manner of casting him out by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of the word 635 n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the use and signification of those words 903. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning thereof 639 n. 15. Diocese Episcopal Dioceses in the primitive notion of them had no subordination and distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Dionysius Areopagita His authority against Transubstantiation 266 § 12. His testimony against Purgatory 513 514. Disputing Two brothers the one a Protestant the other a Papist disputed to convert one another and in the event each of them converted the other 460. Division Of the Divisions in the Church of Rome 403. Doctrine Oral tradition was not usefull to convey Doctrines 354 355 358. What is meant by that reproof our Lord gave the Pharisees of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 471 472. The Romanists doctrine about the seal of Confession is one instance of their teaching for doctrines the commandments of men 473. Durandus His opinion in the question of Transubstantiation 520. E. Ecclesiastes Chap. 5.2 And let not thy heart be hasty to utter any thing before God explained 2. n. 8 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it signifies 637 n. 10. Education The force of it in the choice of Religion 1018 1019. Elections Against popular elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. England The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick prayers 328 c. 2. § 8. The character of the Church of England 346. The great charity of the Protestant Church in England 460. Upon what ground we put Roman Priests to death 464. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. When Image-worship first came in hither 550. Ephesians Chap. 2. v. 3. by nature children of wrath explained 722 n. 50. Chap. 2.5 dead in sins explained 909. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the signification of it 900. Ephrem Syrus His authority against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. Epiphanius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. His authority against the worship of Images 306. The testimony against Images out of his Epistle 536. He mistook and misreported the Heresie of Montanus 955 n. 18. Equivocation The Romanists defend Equivocation and mental reservation 340 c. 3. § 1. Evangelist What that office was 69 § 14. That office was not inconsistent with the office of a Bishop ibid. Eucharist The real presence of Christ is not to be searched into too curiously as to the manner of it 182 § 1. The Pope forced Berengarius to recant in the Capernaitical sense 191 § 3. and 299. The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 199 § 4. That Sacrament does imitate the words used at the Passeover as
well as the institution it self 201 § 5. Scotus affirmed that the truth of the Eucharist may be saved without Transubstantiation 234 § 11. Some have been poisoned by receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist 249 ss 11. The wine will inebriate after consecration therefore it is not bloud 249 § 11. The Marcossians Valentinians and Marcionites though they denied Christ's having a body yet used the Eucharistical Elements 256 § 12. The Council of Trent binds all its subjects to give to the Sacrament of the Altar the same worship which they give to the true God 267 § 13. To worship the Host is Idolatry 268 § 13. They that worship the Host are many times according to their own doctrine in danger of Idolatry 268 269 § 13. Lewis IX pawned the Host to the Sultan of Egypt upon which they bear it to this day in their Escutcheons 270 § 13. The Primitive Church did excommunicate those that did not receive the Eucharist in both kinds Pref. to Diss. pag. 5. The Council of Constance decreed the half Communion with a non obstante to our Lord's institution 302 c. 1. § 6. Authorities to shew that the half Communion was not in use in the Primitive times 303 c. 1. § 6. Of their worshipping the Host 467. Of Communion in one kind onely 469 470. The word Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. The Church of God gave the Chalice to the people for above a thousand years 531. The Roman Churche's consecrating a Wafer is a mere innovation 531 532. The Priest's pardon anciently was nothing but to admit the penitent to the Eucharist 839 n. 54. Of the change that is made in us by it 28. b. The Apostles were confirmed after 30. b. Eusebius His testimony against Transubstantiation 259 260 261 § 12. and 300. and 524. Excommunication Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes it was put to signifie Ecclesiastical repentance 830 n. 34. Exorcisms Their exorcisms have been so bad that the Inquisitors have been fain to put them down 333 § 10. The manner of their casting out Devils by exorcism 334 c. 2. § 10. They give Exorcists distinct ordination 336. Exorcism in the Primitive Church signified nothing but Catechizing 30. b. Ezekiel Chap. 18. v. 3. explained 726 n. 61. F. Faith THE folly of that assertion Credo quia impossibile est when applied to Transubstantiation 231 § 11. To make new Articles of faith that are not in Scripture as the Papists do is condemned by the suffrage of the Fathers Pref. to Diss. pag. 4 5. The Church of Rome adopts uncertain and trifling propositions into their faith 462. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no arricle of faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. What faith is and wherein it consists 941 n. 1. New Articles cannot by the Church be decreed 945 n. 12. Faith is not an act of the understanding onely 949 n. 9. By what circumstances faith becomes moral 950 n. 9. The Romanists keep not faith with hereticks 341. Instances of doctrines that are held by some Romanists to be de fide by others to be not de fide 398. What makes a point to be de fide 399. What it is to be an Article of faith 437. Some things are necessary to be believed that are not articles of faith 437. The Apostles Creed was necessary to be believed not necessitate praecepti but medii 438. No new articles as necessary to be believed ought to be added to the Apostles Creed 438 446. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of faith 446 447. Upon what motives most men imbrace the faith 460. The faith of unlearned men in the Roman Church 461. Fasting It is one of the best Penances 860 n. 114. Father How God punisheth the Father's sin upon the Children 725. God never imputes the Father's sin to the Children so as to inflict eternal punishment but onely temporal 725 n. 56. This God doth onely in punishments of the greatest crimes 725 n. 59. and not often 726 n. 60. but before the Gospel was published 726 n. 62. Fathers When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of some Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. No man but J. S. affirms that the Fathers are infallible 372 373 374. The Fathers stile some hereticks that are not 376. Of what authority the opinion of the Fathers is with some Romanists 376 377. They complained of the dismal troubles in the Church that arose upon enlarging Creeds 441. They reproved pilgrimages 293 496. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. They made prayer for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers 512. A Reply to that Answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. In what sense the ancient Fathers taught the doctrine of original sin 761 n. 22. How the Fathers were divided in the question of the beatifick vision of souls before the day of Judgement 1007. The practice of Rome now is against the doctrine of S. Augustine and 217 Bishops and all their Successours for a whole age together in the question of Appeals to Rome 1008. One Father for them the Papists value more then twenty against them in that case how much they despise them 1008. Gross mistakes taught by several Fathers ibid. The writings of the Fathers adulterated of old and by modern practices 1010. particularly by the Indices Expurgatorii 1011. Fear To leave a sin out of fear is not sinful but may be accepted 785 n. 37. Figure Ambiguous and figurative words may be allowed in a Testament humane or Divine 210 § 6. A certain Athenian's enigmatical Testament ibid. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. How many figurative terms there are in the words of institution 211 212 § 6. When the figurative sense is to be chosen in Scripture 213 § 6. Flesh. The law of the flesh in man 781 n. 31. The contention between it and the Conscience no sign of Regeneration 782 n. 32. How to know which prevails in the contention 782 n. 5. Forgiving Forgiving injuries considered as a part or fruit of Repentance 849 n. 83. Free-will How the necessity of Grace is consistent with this doctrine 754 n. 15. That mankind by the fall of Adam did not lose it 874. The folly of that assertion We are free to sin but not to good 874. Liberty of action in natural things is better but in moral things it is a weakness 874. G. Galatians CHap. 5.15
damneth not 756 n. 16. The sum of the doctrine of Original sin 757 n. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus in the opinion of Vossius understood not Original sin 759 n. 20. P. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHat it signifieth 617 n. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What it and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie 809 n. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of it 617 n. 21. Pardons Of Pardons 316 318 c. 2. § 3 4. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many follies about Pardons and the difficulties 319. Wherein the pardon of sin doth consist 484 485. At the day of Judgement a different pardon is given from what we obtain in this world 501. Several degrees of pardon of sin 839 n. 54. As our repentance is so is our pardon 839. Mistakes about Pardon and Salvation 789 n. 45. Some sins called unpardonable in a limited sense 806 n. 22. What is our state of pardon in this life 814 n. 57. and 816. In what manner and to what purpose the Church pardoneth Penitents by the hand of a Priest 838 839 n. 54. The usefulness of pardon by a Priest 841 n. 59. Parishes When the first division of them was 139 § 43. Episcopal Dioceses in the Primitive notion of them had no subordination nor distinction of Parishes 140 § 43. Which was first a particular Congregation or a Diocese 141 § 43. Passions What they are 870. How the Will and Passions do differ and where they are seated ibid. They do not rule the will 871. Their violence excuseth not under the title of sins of infirmity 792 n. 56. Make it the great business of thy life to subdue thy Passions 795 n. 67. A state of passion is a state of spiritual death 793 n. 58. A Passion in the soul is nothing but a peculiar way of being affected with an object 825 n. 19. The Passions are not immediately subject to commandment 826 n. 19. From what cause each Passion flows ibid. Passeover The Eucharist does imitate the words used at the Passeover as the institution is a Copy of that 201 § 5. The Lamb is said to be the Passeover of which deliverance it was onely the commemorative sign 211 § 6. Peace Truth and Peace compared in their value 883. All truth is not to be preferred before it 882 962. Pelagian How the doctrine of Original sin as here explicated is contrary to the Pelagian 571. Saint Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians made him mistake Rom. 7.15 19. pag. 775 n. 18. Of that Heresie 761 n. 23 24. How it is mistaken 761 762 n. 23. Pelagius's Heresie not condemned by any General Council 961 n. 31. Penances Of corporal austerities 858 n. 111. A rule for the measure of them 860 n. 114 115. Which are best and rather to be chosen 860 n. 114. Fasting Prayer and Alms are the best penances 860 n. 115. They are not to be accounted simply necessary or a direct service of God 860 n. 116. People Against popular Elections in the Church 131 § 40. How it came to pass that in the Acts of the Apostles the people seem to exercise the power of electing the Seven Deacons 131 § 40. The people's approbation in the choice of the superiour Clergy was sometimes taken how and upon what reason 132 § 40. The people had de facto no vote in the first Oecumenical Council 137 § 41. Perfection How Christian perfection and supererogation differ 590 591 n. 16. Perfection of degrees and of state 582 n. 41. ad 48. How perfection is consistent with repentance 582 n. 47. § 3. per tot Wherein perfection of state consisteth 583 n. 47. Perfection in genere actûs 584. what it is 584. The perfection of a Christian is not the supreme degree of action or intention 585 n. 47. It cannot be less then an entire Piety perfect in its parts 585 n. 48. The perfection of a Christian requires increase 589 n. 13. and 583 n. 44. Philippians Chap. 1. v. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Text discussed 87 § 23. Chap. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with fear explained 676 n. 55. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What these words in Saint Paul's style do import 767 n. 38. and 781. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The use of that word 723 and 767 n. 35. Picture Divers Hereticks did worship the Picture of our Lord and were reproved for it 545. A reply to that answer of the Romanists That the writings of the Fathers do forbid nothing else but picturing the Divine Essence 550 554. Against the distinction of picturing the Essence and the Shape 550 554. Pope John caused those to be burned for Hereticks that made Pictures of the Trinity 555. Pilgrimages They are reproved by the ancient Fathers 293 496. Place Picus Mirandula maintained at Rome that one body by the power of God could not be in two places at one time 222 § 9. How a spirit is in place 236 § 11. How a body is in place ibid. One body cannot at the same time be in two places 236 § 11. and 241. A glorified body is subject to the conditions of locality as others are according to Saint Augustine's opinion 237 § 11. Ubiquity is an incommunicable attribute of God's 237 § 11. and 241. The device of potential and actual Ubiquity helps not 237 § 11. Three natural ways of being in a place 237 § 11 Of being in a place Sacramentaliter 239 § 11. Bellarmine holds that one body may be in two places at once which Aquinas denieth 239 § 11. That one body cannot be at once in two distant places 236 and 241 § 11. That consequence If two bodies may be in one place then one body may be in two places denied 243 § 11. Against Aristotle's definition of place 244 § 11. When our Lord entred into an assembly of the Apostles the doors being shut it does not infer that there were two bodies in one place 245 § 11. Two bodies cannot be in one place 245 § 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true notion of it 636 n. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How it differs from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 724 n. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 636 n. 5. Pope A Text of Saint Cyprian's contrary to their Supremacy over the Bishops that succeed other Apostles 155 § 48. The authority of a Pope against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The Apostles were from Christ invested with an equal authority 308. By the Law of Christ one Bishop is not superiour to another and they all derive their power equally from Christ 309. When Bellarmine was to answer the authority of Fathers brought against the Pope's universal Episcopacy he allows not the Fathers to have a vote against the Pope 310 c. 1. § 10. Saint Cyprian affirms that Pope Stephen had not a superiority of power over Bishops that were of forrein Dioceses 310. Saint Gregory Bishop of Rome reproved the Patriarch of Constantinople for
calling himself Universal Bishop 310. Saint Peter did not act as having any superiority over the Apostles 310 c. 1. § 10. There is nothing in Scripture to prove that the Bishop of Rome succeeds Saint Peter in that power he had more then any other 310. Pope Victor and Pope Stephen were opposed by other Bishops 310. The Council of Chalcedon did by decree give to the Bishop of Constantinople equal priviledges with Rome 310. A Pope accused in the Lateran Council for not being in Orders 325 c. 2. § 7. It is held ominous for a Pope to canonize a Saint 333 c. 2. § 9. The Romanists teach the Pope hath power to dispense with all the Laws of God 342. He hath power as the Romanists teach to dispose of the temporal things of all Christians 344. He is to be obeyed according to their doctrine though he command Sin or forbid Vertue 345. He takes upon him to depose Princes that are not heretical 345. The greatness of the Pope's power 345. Sixtus Quintus did in an Oration in the Conclave solemnly commend the Monk that kill'd Henry III. of France 346 c. 3. § 3. Of the Pope's confirming a General Council 395. A General Council in many cases cannot have the Pope's Confirmation 396. Whether the Pope be above a Council 396. When Pope Stephen decreed against Saint Cyprian in the point of rebaptizing Hereticks Saint Cyprian regarded it not nor changed his opinion 399. Sixtus V. and some other Popes were Simoniacal 401. A Simoniacal Pope is no Pope ibid. An Heretical Pope is no Pope ibid. What Popes have been heretical 401 402. What Popes have been guilty of those crimes that disannul their authority 400 401 402. The Pope hath not power to make Articles of Faith 446 447. Of his Infallibility 995 § 7. per tot He the Romanists teach can make new Articles of Faith and new Scripture 450. The Roman Writers reckon the Decretal Epistles of Popes among the Holy Scriptures 451. Bellarmine confesseth that for 1500 years the Pope's judgment was not esteemed infallible 453. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. An instance of a Pope's skill in the Bible 505. Lindwood in the Council of Basil made an appeal in behalf of the King of England against the Pope 511. The same Pope that decreed Transubstantiation made Rebellion lawful 520. When the Pope excommunicated Saint Cyprian all Catholicks absolved him 957 n. 22. Some Papists hold that the Popedome is separable from the Bishoprick of Rome how then can he get any thing by the title of Succession 999. Divers ancient Bishops lived separate from the Communion of the Roman Pope 1002. The Bishops of Liguria and Istria renounced subjection to the Patriarchate of Rome and set up one of their own at Aquileia ibid. Divers Popes were Hereticks 1003. Possible Two senses of it 580 n. 34. Prayer The practice of the Heathens in their prayers and hymns to their gods 3 n. 11. Against them that deny all Set forms of Prayer 2 n. 6. seq Against those that allow any Set forms of prayer but those that are enjoyned by Authority 13 n. 51. Prescribed forms in publick are more for the edification of the Church then the other kind 14 n. 56. ad 65. The Lord's Prayer was given to be a Directory not onely for the matter of prayer but the manner or form too 19 n. 75. The Church hath the gift of Prayer and can exercise it in none but prescribed Forms 18 n. 69 70. Our Lord gave his Prayer to be not onely a Copy but a prescribed Form 19 n. 78. The practice of the Primitive Church in this matter 21 n. 86. Whether the Primitive Church did well in using publick prescribed Forms of Prayer and upon what grounds 25 n. 97. An answer to that Objection That Set forms limit the Spirit 30 n. 116. That Objection that Ministers may be allowed a liberty in their Prayers as well as their Sermons answered 32 n. 129. What in the sense of Scripture is praying with the Spirit 9 n. 37. and 47. The Romanists teach that neither attention nor devotion are required in our prayers 327 c. 2. § 8. Of the Scripture and Liturgy in an unknown tongue 471. A Pope gave leave to the Moravians to have Mass in the Sclavonian tongue 534. Of Prayer as a fruit or act of Repentance 848 n. 80. It is one of the best penances 860 n. 114. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The opinion and practice of the ancient Church in the language of publick Prayers 303 304. The Papists corrupted the Imperial law of Justinian in the matter of Prayers in an unknown tongue 304 c. 1. § 7. The authority of a Pope and General Council against publick Prayers in an unknown tongue 304. The difference between the Church of England and Rome in the use of publick Prayer 328 c. 2. § 8. Prayer for the dead The Primitive Fathers that practised it did not think of Purgatory 501. Saint Augustine prayed for his dead Mother when he believed her to be a Saint in Heaven 501 502. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis proved to mean prayer and not thanksgiving onely 502. Instances out of the Latin Missal where prayers are made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers 512. Preach Presbyters in Africk by Law were not allowed to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyter Tit. 1.15 it signifies Bishop and not mere Presbyter 71 § 15. Presbyters in Jerusalem were something more then Presbyters in other Churches 97 § 21. Those Presbyters mentioned Act. 20.28 in these words in quo Spir. Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos were Bishops and not mere Presbyters 80 § 21. Neither the Church nor the Presbyters in it had power to excommunicate before they had a Bishop set over them 82 § 21. Mere Presbyters had not in the Church any jurisdiction in causes criminal otherwise then by delegation 82 § 21. In what sense it is true that Bishops are not greater then Presbyters 83 § 21. Bishops in Scripture are styled Presbyters 85 § 23. Apostles in Scripture styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 85 § 23. Mere Presbyters in Scripture are never called Bishops 86 § 23. A Presbyter did once assist at the ordaining a Bishop 98 § 31. Presbyters could not ordain 102 § 32. The Council of Sardis would not own them as Presbyters who were ordained by none but Presbyters 103 § 32. A Bishop may ordain without the concurrence of a Presbyter 105 § 32. Photius was â—he first that gave the power of Confirmation to Presbyters 109 § 33. The Bishop alone could
suspend or depose without the presence of a Presbyter 116 117 § 36. In the Primitive Church they might not officiaâ—e without the licence of the Bishop 127 § 37. In Africk Presbyters were not by Law permitted to preach upon occasion of Arius preaching his errours 128 § 37. They had not the power of voting in Councils 136 § 41. The Council of Basil was the first in which they in their own right were admitted to vote 136 § 41. They as such did not vote in that first Oecumenical Council held Acts 15. pag. 137 § 41. Saint Cyprian's authority alledged in behalf of the Presbyters and people's interest in the government of the Church answered 145 146 § 44. Saint Cyprian did ordain and perform acts of jurisdiction without his Presbyters ibid. The Presbyter's assistence to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. In all Churches where a Bishop's seat was there was not always a College of Presbyters onely in the greater Churches 146 § 44. One Bishop alone without the concurrence of more Bishops could not depose 147 § 44. Presbyters at first had no distinct Cure 136 § 50. The signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 165 § 51. There were some Presbyters of whom it was not required to preach 167 § 51. Priest What the Penitentiary Priest was and by whom taken away 473 474 492 493. That the Priest's power to absolve is not judicial but declarative onely 483. Whether to confess all our greater sins to a Priest be necessary to salvation 477. The Priest's act in cleansing the Leper was but declarative 483 486. Celebrate when spoken of the Eucharist means the action of the people as well as the Priest 530. Whether Confirmation may be administred by Presbyters 19 20 21. b. What is the power of Priests in order to pardoning sin 838. Of the forms of Absolution given by the Priest 838. Absolution of sins by the Priest can be no more then declarative 834 n. 41. and 841. Confession to a Priest is no part of Contrition 833 n. 41. The benefit of confessing to a Priest 834 n. 43. Auricular confession to a Priest whence it descended 833 n. 41. Of confessing to a Priest or Minister 857. Absolution by a Priest is not that which Christ intended by the power of remitting and retaining sins 841 n. 60. Attrition joyned with the Priest's Absolution is not sufficient for pardon 842 n. 62 64. Primitive Traditions now held that are contrary to the Primitive Traditions 453 454. Principle First Principles are not necessary in all Discourses 356. Probable That any probable opinion may safely be followed 324 c. 2. § 7. The ill consequents of that doctrine 325. What makes an opinion probable 324 c. 2. § 7. It is no excuse for them to say This is the opinion but of one Doctor 325 c. 2. § 7. Instances to shew that to follow the opinion of a probable Doctor will make the worst sins seem lawful 326. Demonstration is not needful but where there is an aequilibrium of probabilities 362. Probability is as good as Demonstration where is no shew of reason against it 362. Prohibitions Whether the Secular power can give them against the Ecclesiastical 122 § 36. Prophane The difference in committing sin between the prophane moral and regenerate man 782. Proverb A Proverb contrary to truth is a great prejudice to a man's understanding 798. Avoid all Proverbs by which evil life is encouraged ibid. Psalms The meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Council of Laodicea 23 n. 91 92. Psalm 51.5 explained 721 n. 49. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the word signifieth 724 n. 53. Punishment The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. God punisheth not one sin with another 859 n. 112. The least sin more evil then the greatest punishment 618 n. 24. We should by our choice make that temporal punishment penitential that God inflicts 859 n. 113. An instance of that practice out of Eusebius ibid. Purgatory An account of some false Propositions without which the doctrine of Purgatory cannot be maintained 294. The guilt being taken away there can remain no obligation to punishment 294. Simon Magus had the first notion of Purgatory 294. Those testimonies of the Fathers that prove Prayer for the dead do not prove Purgatory 295. The Fire of purgation that the Fathers speak of is not the Romanists Purgatory 295. Those silly Legends upon which they ground Purgatory 296 c. 1. § 4. The Greek Church disowns Purgatory 297. The authority of Fathers against it 297 c. 1. § 4. When the doctrine of Purgatory was first brought into the Church 495. Of Purgatory and the testimonies of Roffensis and Pol. Virgil against it justified 500. The Primitive Fathers that practised prayer for the dead thought not of Purgatory 501. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides were not then in Purgatory 502 503. Instances out of the Latine Missal where prayers were made for those that were dead and yet not in Purgatory 505. The doctrine of the Roman Purgatory was no Article of Faith in Saint Augustine's time 506. The testimony of Otho Frisingensis against Purgatory considered 509. The opinion of the Greek Church concerning Purgatory 510. The Roman doctrine of Purgatory is directly contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers 512. The testimony of Saint Cyprian Saint Dionysius Saint Justin Martyr against Purgatory 513 514. Q. Questions IN those about the immaculate Conception Tradition is equally pretended on both sides 435. Those that arose in the Council of Nice were not determined by Tradition but Scripture 425. Sundry Questions as Whether the practice of the Primitive Fathers denying Ecclesiastical repentance to Idolaters and Murtherers and Adulterers and them onely be warrantable 805. Whether we derive from Adam original and natural ignorance 713 n. 22. Whether Attrition with Absolution pardoneth sin 842. Whether it be possible to keep the Law 579. Whether Perfection be consistent with Repentance 579 c. 1. ss 3. per tot Whether sinful Habits require a distinct manner of Repentance 652. Whether every single deliberate act of sin put the sinner out of God's favour c. 4. ss 2. per tot Whether disobedience that is voluntary in the cause but not in the effect is to be punished 719 n. 44. and 785. Whether if Adam had not sinned Christ had been incarnate 771. and 748 4. How we are to understand the Divine Justice in exacting an impossible Law 580 n. 32. Since God imposeth not an impossible Law how does it consist with his wisedom to impose what in justice he does not exact 581 n. 35. If so many acts of sin taken singly and alone do damn how can any man be saved 642 643 n. 28. Whether one is bound to repent of his sin as soon as he hath committed it 653. and 654 n. 7 8. sequ R. Real Presence THis like
power and order of Episcopacy And this shall be in subsidium to them also that call for reduction of the state Episcopal to a primitive consistence and for the confirmation of all those pious sons of Holy Church who have a venerable estimate of the publick and authorized facts of Catholick Christendom * For consider we Is it imaginable that all the world should immediately after the death of the Apostles conspire together to seek themselves and not ea quae sunt Jesu Christi to erect a government of their own devising not ordained by Christ not delivered by his Apostles and to relinquish a Divine foundation and the Apostolical superstructure which if it was at all was a part of our Masters will which whosoever knew and observed not was to be beaten with many stripes Is it imaginable that those gallant men who could not be brought off from the prescriptions of Gentilism to the seeming impossibilities of Christianity without evidence of Miracle and clarity of Demonstration upon agreed principles should all upon their first adhesion to Christianity make an Universal dereliction of so considerable a part of their Masters will and leave Gentilism to destroy Christianity for he that erects another Oeconomy than what the Master of the Family hath ordained destroyes all those relations of mutual dependance which Christ hath made for the coadunation of all the parts of it and so destroyes it in the formality of a Christian congregation or family * Is it imaginable that all those glorious Martyrs that were so curious observers of Divine Sanctions and Canons Apostolical that so long as that Ordinance of the Apostles concerning abstinence from blood was of force they would rather die than eat a strangled Hen or a Pudding for so Eusebius relates of the Christians in the particular instance of Biblis and Blandina that they would be so sedulous in contemning the Government that Christ left for his Family and erect another * To what purpose were all their watchings their Banishments their fears their fastings their penances and formidable austerities and finally their so frequent Martyrdomes of what excellency or avail if after all they should be hurried out of this world and all their fortunes and possessions by untimely by disgraceful by dolorous deaths to be set before a Tribunal to give account of their universal neglect and contemning of Christ's last Testament in so great an affair as the whole government of his Church * If all Christendom should be guilty of so open so united a defiance against their Master by what argument or confidence can any misbeliver be perswaded to Christianity which in all its members for so many ages together is so unlike its first institution as in its most publick affair and for matter of order of the most general concernment is so contrary to the first birth * Where are the promises of Christ's perpetual assistance of the impregnable permanence of the Church against the gates of Hell of the Spirit of truth to lead it into all truth if she be guilty of so grand an error as to erect a throne where Christ had made all level or appointed others to sit in it than whom he suffers * Either Christ hath left no government or most certainly the Church hath retained that Government whatsoever it is for the contradictory to these would either make Christ improvident or the Catholick Church extreamly negligent to say no worse and incurious of her depositum * But upon the confidence of all * Christendom if there were no more in it I * suppose we may fairly venture Sit anima mea * cum Christianis SECT XXIII Who first distinguished Names used before in common THE First thing done in Christendom upon the death of the Apostles in this matter of Episcopacy is the distinguishing of Names which before were common For in holy Scripture all the names of Clerical offices were given to the superiour Order and particularly all offices and parts and persons designed in any imployment of the sacred Priesthood were signified by Presbyter and Presbyterium And therefore lest the confusion of Names might perswade an identity and indistinction of office the wisdom of H. Church found it necessary to distinguish and separate orders and offices by distinct and proper appellations For the Apostles did know by our Lord Jesus Christ that contentions would arise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the name of Episcopacy saith S. Clement and so it did in the Church of Corinth as soon as their Apostle had expired his last breath But so it was 1. The Apostles which I have proved to be the supream ordinary office in the Church and to be succeeded in were called in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Peter the Apostle the Elders or Presbyters that are among you I also who am an Elder or Presbyter do intreat Such elders S. Peter spoke to as he was himself to wit those to whom the Regiment of the Church was committed the Bishops of Asia Pontus Galatia Cappadocia and Bithynia that is to Timothy to Tychicus to Sosipater to the Angels of the Asian Churches and all others whom himself in the next words points out by the description of their office 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Feed the Flock of God as Bishops or being Bishops and Overseers over it And that to Rulers he then spake is evident by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it was impertinent to have warned them of tyranny that had no rule at all * The mere Presbyters I deny not but are included in this admonition for as their office is involved in the Bishops office the Bishop being Bishop and Presbyter too so is his duty also in the Bishops so that pro ratâ the Presbyter knows what lies on him by proportion and intuition to the Bishops admonition But again * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint John the Apostle and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Presbyter to Gaius The Presbyter to the elect Lady 2. * If Apostles be called Presbyters no harm though Bishops be called so too for Apostles and Bishops are all one in ordinary office as I have proved formerly Thus are those Apostolical men in the Colledge at Jerusalem called Presbyters whom yet the Holy Ghost calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principal men ruling men and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presbyters that rule well by Presbyters are meant Bishops to whom only according to the intention and exigence of Divine institution the Apostle had concredited the Church of Ephesus and the neighbouring Cities ut solus quisque Episcopus praesit omnibus as appears in the former discourse The same also is Acts 20. The Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops and yet the same men are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one place expounds the other for they are both ad idem and speak of Elders of the same Church * 3. Although Bishops be called Presbyters