wrote to Leo with all the respect imaginable and let him see that the Questors and those who had till that time upheld them had dishonoured his See and his Church that as to himself he found himself very unhappy to see that their Calumnies should have prevailed over his Innocence and he further offered to give over that matter of Indulgences and wholly to be silent in it provided that his Adversaries should do the like But whether it was that all that Negotiation of Miltit was but feigned on his part or that in effect his counsel was not approved by those of his Party as Luther himself insinautes it is certain that from the time that that Letter had been drawn from him George Duke of Saxony a Prince that stuck very close to the Interests of the Pope desired that he would make a publick Disputation at Leipsic upon the matters in controversy the dispute was managed the beginning between Eccius and Carolostad concerning Free-will and Grace but they drew in Luther himself upon the subject of Indulgences of Purgatory and the Power of the Pope And they procured almost at the same time from the Universities of Cologn and Lovain a condemnation of divers Articles drawn out of his Books He defended himself against these new Adversaries and made the World see by his publick writings the truth of his Doctrine and the injustice of those Condemnations But within a little after Pope Leo being unwilling to try any thing further published his terrible Bull of Excommunication against him which they call the Bull Exurge There after having earnestly importuned Jesus Christ Saint Peter and Saint Paul with all the Saints in Paradise to come to the succour of the Church of Rome he sets down in particular one and forty Articles of Luthers Doctrine which he declared to be respectively pestilent destructive scandalous false heretical offending pious Ears seducing Souls and contrary to the Catholick Truth and to the Charity to the respect and obedience that was owing to the Church of Rome which is the Mother of all the Faithful and the Mistriss of the Faith and as such severally he condemned them disproved them rejected them and declared that they ought to be rejected by Christians of both Sexes He forbad all Bishops Patriarchs Metropolitans and generally all Church-men and Kings the Emperour the Electors Princes Dukes Marquesses Earls Barons Captains c. and in a word all sorts of men to hold those Articles or to favour them in any manner what soever under the penalty of Excommunication and being deprived of their Lands and of their Goods and treated as infamous Hereticks favourers of Hereticks and guilty of High Treason And as to Luther he complained of him that he would not come to Rome where he would have let him have seen that he had not done so much evil as he believed and he agravated it as a great rashness in him to have appealed to a Council against the Constitutions of Pius the Second and of Julius the Second who would have those punished as Hereticks that made such appeals That therefore he condemned as Hereticks him and all his Adherents if in the space of fifty days they did not renounce all their Errours he forbad all Christians to have any Commerce or Conversation with them or to yeild them any necessary things and gave his Orders to the Emperour to Kings and Princes c. to seize their Persons and to send them to Rome promising great rewards to those who should do so good a work Luther some time after wrote against that Bull and appealed afresh to a Council lawfully called notwithstanding he justified himself with great solidity about all those condemned Articles And it is pertinent to note that among those Articles that the Pope Anathematized as Heretical or Rash or Scandalous and contrary to the Catholick Truth these following Propositions might be found That that Proverb was most true that said That the best Pennance is a good Life that it would be very well if the Church in a Council should ordain that the Laity should receive the Communion in both kinds That the Treasure of the Church from whence the Pope drew his Indulgences is not the Merits of Jesus Christ and the Saints That the Bishop of Rome the Successour of Saint Peter is not the Vicar of Jesus Christ over all the Churches of the world nor that there was any one established by Jesus Christ himself in the Person of Saint Peter That it is not in the power of the Church or of the Pope to make Articles of Faith nor to establish new Laws for Manners or for good Works That tho' the Pope should hold with a great part of the Church an opinion which should not it self be erronious yet it would not be a sin or an heresy to hold a contrary opinion especially in things not necessary to Salvation until a General Council should have disproved the one and approved of the other that the Ecclesiastical Prelats and Secular Princes did not do ill when they abolished the Order of begging Friers That Purgatory could not be proved by the Holy Canonical Scripture These Propositions are declared to be either pestilent or pernicious or scandalous or heretical without specifying any one in particular for the Pope speaks of them only in the whole that they are such So it was that Leo and all his Court managed those matters To affirm that a true amendment of Life a holy and sincere return from Vice to Vertue is the best of all Pennances appeared to be a detestable crime to them To wish that a General Council might establish the Communion of the Eucharist according to the Institution of Jesus Christ and the Custom of the Primitive Church was such an abomination with them as was thought sufficient to deserve the Flames Not to beleive that the Merits of Jesus Christ and of the Saints made up a certain Treasure which neither Faith nor Holiness nor Repentance could give the Faithful any part of but which were to be dispenced only by the way of Indulgences for money pass'd in their Judgments for a Hellish Heresie To hold that our Faith has nothing else but the Word of God for its object and not that of men also and that God alone can impose moral Laws on the Conscience was in their opinion an astonishing wickedness To believe that one may without Herefy hold an opinion contrary to that of the Pope in matters not necessary to Salvation and not determined by any Council was a pestilent errour To give the least blow to the interests of Monks or the Fire of Purgatory was an horrible sacriledge for which there was not any remission After that condemnation the Pope wrote to John Frederick Elector of Saxony earnestly entreating him not to give any more protection to Luther and he sent Hierome Aleander his Nuntio into Germany to cause that condemnation to be executed But Aleander not being able to obtain of
Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the Promises of whom were the Fathers and who had the Oracles of God committed unto them and in whose bosom Christ according to the flesh was born If that Maxim of the Author of Prejudices were good it must necessarily have been good for that Church which had condemned Jesus Christ his Person his Call his Miracles his Doctrine and what right then had his Disciples to hear and follow him We have seen them from Reason and from the Testimony of a very considerable person of our Age and to whom one of the greatest Kings has given the honour of committing the concerns of his Conscience to him that if that Maxim had place that we ought entirely to refer our selves to the Authority of the Church we could not any more regard those Miracles when they were opposite to that Authority Let them tell us then what right the Disciples had to follow Jesus Christ by what right did the first Converts and those who were afterwards Converted by others embrace the Gospel And if they did it without any right and against their duty into what Labyrinths we cast you What would become of the Christian Church what would become of you your selves You form prejudices against us drawn from the faults that have say you appeared in the persons of our first Reformers You tell us of a pretended precipitancy by which the Magistrates of Zurich Reformed themselves you conclude from thence without entring upon the points in dispute that we ought to renounce the Reformation of our Fathers Answer then your selves to the Prejudices that according to your Maxim the Jews may form against the first Disciples of Jesus Christ and to the Consequence that they may draw from thence that without entring any further into a Discussing of the Points of that Religion without examining either the Miracles or the Antient Prophecies or the success of the Preaching of the Gospel or all the other things that we could alledge in our favour we ought to renounce our Christianity You your selves Authorise their Principle by one that is altogether like it which you lay down and which you know not how to make use of against them without overthrowing your selves in a word you draw the same Consequence from it with them shew us then by what secret Art both you and we may get out of that Abyss whereinto you have plunged us If your Fathers say you have Reformed themselves with an ill design you ought without farther examination to renounce their Reformation If the chief Authors of your Religion a Jew will say have adhered to Jesus with an ill design against the obligation which they had to cleave to the Church you ought to renounce their Christianity Answer if you can to those Arguments and set our Consciences in quiet As for us indeed we are not in pain for we know that that Principle which you urge to those unbelievers is false There is not any person who has not right to examine the points of that Religion and to discern by himself the true from the false the good from the bad that which is from God from that which which from men The Authority of the Church never goes so far as to hinder us with any justice from it and so there is nothing to reproach the first Christians 9. But we ought not to give over these reflections without making one upon the state of the Church in the times of the Councils of Sirmium of Milan and of Ariminum whereof I have spoken before There is no person who knows not that the Arrians were then Masters of the Ecclesiastical Ministry which they called the Catholick Church treating the Orthodox as Hereticks and Disturbers of its Peace deposing them and sending them into banishment The Poyson of the Arrians says Vincentius Lirinensis had not only infected one part but almost all the world and almost all the Latin Bishops some by force others by simplicity giving themselves over to be deceived found themselves engaged in the darkness of Error We are in that condition said Phaebadius that if we would be called Catholicks it is necessary that we embrace Heresie and yet nevertheless if we do not reject Heresie we cannot be truly Catholicks God did yet keep to himself notwithstanding some Bishops few in number but great in Courage and that small remnant in the end serv'd for a spark to rekindle the Fire of the Faith in the Church Apply then to them that Maxim which we have before opposed and weigh those Consequences that may be drawn from it against those and against the Faithful who Heard them and Read their Writings The least is that they were Schismaticks and Corruptors of the people who after having themselves broken off that obedience which they owed to the Church sollicited others to do the like They might have very well urged that they had the Scriptures on their side that they had the Council of Nice for them but they would have answered them That it was no longer time to dispute that they ought to submit themselves to and acquiesce in the definitions of the Church Since it was the duty of the Faithful to strip themselves of their own Conduct to rest upon that of the Church Nevertheless they did not fail generously to maintain the Truth to dispute and write for it to address themselves not only to the Bishops but to the people and to defend it against that specious name of a Church which they set before them and the words of Saint Hilary upon this subject are worthy of a particular consideration The Church says he terrified men by Banishments and by Prisons and constrained them to believe what she tells them she that her self had never been believed but by the Exile and Prisons which she suffered She which had been only Consecrated by the Persecution of men Bene a dignatione Communicantium She drives away the Priests forgetting that by the Banishment of her Priests she increased She boasts that she is beloved by the world but she could not belong to Jesus Christ unless the world hated her Haec de comparatione traditae nobis olim Ecclesiae nunc quam de perditae res ipsa que in oculis omnium est at que ore clamavit Can any one be rash enough to maintain that he was bound then to refer himself to the Authority of that Church to see with its Eyes to tread in its Steps and to rest himself upon its Conduct Will any say that that handful of good men who have since re-established Christianity was nothing else but a company of Rebels and of presumptuous minds Will they charge their Writing and their Letters to the people with Forgeries and Subornations Will they justifie their being Deposed their Banishments the Persecutions which they so constantly suffered Will they say that the Faithful that heard them were rash and
difficulty to get thither and yet that belonging of right to the examination of all men the darkness of the understanding the easiness wherewith men may deceive themselves the want of necessary helps the ignorance and simplicity of the greatest part of men would not hinder it Those are then no other than frivolous Reasons which cannot take away from men that right that God and Nature have given them They ought therefore to enjoy it at least in some respect to wit for the deciding of the question whether they ought to lose it or no. 13. But it is certain they can never so enjoy it in that regard nor decide that Question without entring upon an examination of all their Doctrines which lets us see yet more and more the absurdity of our Adversaries Principle For there is not any Principle more absurd than that which destroys it self which cannot be established but by making use of a contrary Principle and which precisely can have no place but there where it cannot be of any use But all that may be said of that Principle of those Gentlemen since it is most true that to establish it one must necessarily proceed to examine their Doctrines and that they can never know whether they ought to refer themselves to the Latin Church or examine that Doctrine by themselves till they have made that examination that is to say till there shall be no farther occasion to refer themselves to that Authority of the Latin Church which makes pleasant sport enough This is that which is evidently manifest if one consider it that before one can acknowledge the Authority of the Latin Church it must be supposed that one is assured that among all the Religious Societies that are in the World the Christian is the only one in which one ought to place himself and that can never be known but by one way only which is that of examining its Doctrine and its Worship In effect there is not any one of those external marks that can make that difference The Jews had their Miracles Antiquity Succession an uninterrupted Duration the Holiness of their Patriarchs the Light of their Prophecies the Majesty of their Ceremonies we do not dispute these marks with them and as to Temporal Prosperity they had it heretofore and we are not assured that we have always had that whereof we make such boasting which nevertheless is not very great The Mahometans glory that they have the same things with the consent of the People and the admirable success of their Arms and as for Antiquity which they fail in they say that as Jesus Christ did but succeed Moses so Mahomet also has succeeded Jesus Christ As for the Heathens they had as I have said their Miracles their Saints their Prophets their Ceremonies their Succession their uninterrupted Duration their Temporal Prosperities and if we strive with them about Antiquity and Multitude the advantage will not lye on our side There is then nothing more deceitful than those external appearances separated from their Doctrines they are as proper to make a Jew remain a Jew a Heathen a Heathen and a Mahometan to remain a Mahometan as to make a Christian to remain a Christian whence it follows that to form well that difference and to be assured that the Christian Communion is the only good one one ought to examine its Worship and its Doctrines Moreover before they could acknowledge the Authority of the Latin Church they must suppose that a man is sure that among all the Christian Sects the Latin only is the true Church and that cannot be known but by the examination of its Doctrines Those external marks can be no ways proper for it The Greeks the Abyssines the Nestorians ascribe to themselves Antiquity Succession Miracles an uninterrupted Duration as well as the Latins They have their Saints their Prophets their Ceremonies and their Multitude which is not less considerable and as to worldly Prosperity the Abyssines may boast of it and the Muscovites also who make a part of the Greek Church and who knows whether that of the Latin Church shall never change It is then manifest that they can conclude nothing from those marks separated from their Doctrine they are so ambiguous and uncertain that they cannot fix any setled Judgment upon them concerning the truth of the Latin Church But supposing that they could by those external marks or by any other ways which they would take be assured that the Latin Church was the true Church I say it must necessarily be understood in this Sence to wit that in that visible Communion God brings up and preserves his truly Faithful ones For it is in those only that that name of the visible Church is verified and not in the prophane the wicked and the worldly who are mingled with them and who are none of that Body that is the Spouse of Jesus Christ They must then be assured before they can know whether they ought to refer themselves absolutely to that Body of Pastors that governs the Latin Church that the prophane and the worldly do not prevail in that Body and that they never have prevailed for if they do prevail or if they ever have prevailed they may introduce errours into the publick Ministry and false Worship or suffer them to come in through their negligence or otherwise or scatter abroad the ill Doctrines of the Schools amongst the People favour ill customs and in a word corrupt that Communion as it appears that that did come to pass in the Jewish Church and sometimes in the Christian But how can any be fully assured that it may not be so at present otherwise then by the examining of her Doctrine They ought then to give up that point of external marks our Fathers have gained their cause without going any farther by the Prejudices of Corruption which I have set down in the second and third Chapters But if you take them only as meer conjectures and if you will reckon them to be nothing it is certain that to be assured that there is nothing corrupted in a Communion where God brings up and preserves his true Faithful people that the publick Ministry is pure in all its Doctrines and in its Worship one must of necessity take that way of examination and that examination must be very exact So that before we can enter only upon that Question whether we ought to give to the Latin Church a Soveraign Authority over our Faith and Consciences the discussing of which they know not how to avoid all must be examined from whence it follows that that Principle which I have opposed is absur'd because it destroys it self and none can ever practise it till it cannot be any more of any use and more absur'd yet in that when it would hinder us from examining it constrains us to make an examination as exact as can be thought of CHAP. IX An Examen of those Reasons they alleadge to Establish that Soveraign Authority
Sienna told them that in the blindness wherein they were they placed their glory in that which was truly their shame and that on the contrary they held those things to be a reproach to them whereon their honour and Salvation did depend to wit in humbling themselves under their Head which was God Furthermore they have no love for any but sinners they despise the poor and howsoever the Canons forbid them they keep about their persons Pimps debauchers of Women Flatterers Buffoons Players where they should have had wise and holy men In fine instead of the Law of Truth the Law of Vanity is in the mouths of the Bishops and the lips of the Priests preserve knowledge but it is that of the World and not of the Spirit And a little after At present says he the State and Dignity of the Bishops may be known by their Earthly riches by their affairs and sordid cares of the World by their troublesome Wars and by their Temporal Dominion Alas the Lord Jesus said plainly that his Kingdom was not of this World he retired himself alone into a Mountain when he knew that they went about to make him a King How then is it that he who holds the place of Jesus Christ not only accepts Dominion but seeks it and that he whom Jesus Christ has taught to be meek and lowly in heart should reign in pleasures in luxury in violence in pride in haughtiness in riches and in rapines And yet a little after The Bishops have renounced Hospitality they neglect the poor of Jesus Christ but they make themselves fat and feed their Dogs and other Beasts as if with a formed design they would be in the number of those to whom Christ shall say I was poor and you relieved me not go ye cursed into Eternal fire For Generally almost all the Bishops lie under the evil of Covetousness they are ravishers of others goods and but ill despencers of the Churches turning aside to other uses that which they ought to employ in Divine uses or the feeding of the poor What Bishop is there adds he who does not more love to be a rich Lord and Honoured in the World then to help the poor The whole design of their lives is but for the things of the World They love to array themselves after the Fashion of that and as for the Ecclesiastical Ornaments whether they be Corporal or Spiritual they scarce make any account of them and therefore it was that S. Brigit said That the Bishops took the counsel of the Devil who said to them Behold those honours which I offer you the riches that are in my hand I dispence pleasures the delights of the World are sweet you must enjoy them That same Saint says further that the Covetousness of the Bishops is a bottomless Gulph and that their pride and their luxurious Lives was an unsavoury steam which made them abominable before the Angels of Heaven and before the Friends of God upon Earth As to the other Prelats and the Curats the same Author represents them to us after this manner In these Times says he there are very few Elections that are Cononically made and without under hand canvassings on the contrary the greatest parts of the Prelats and Beneficed men are made by Kings and Princes in an unlawful manner and which is more being brought in by Canvassings and Simony they are confirmed by the Popes against the Priviledges of the Churches and the Statutes of Germany and against all manner of Justice Furthermore the Bishops ordinarily promote to dignities and the Cure of Souls their Cooks their Collectors of their Tribute their Pensionaries the Grooms of their Stables Hence Ubertine said That the Antient Holiness of the Prelats wasted away by degrees and that it began to fall by Canvassings by Pomp and by Simony by unlawful Elections by Covetousness and by the abundance and superfluity of Temporal things by the promotions that the Bishops made of their Creatures by neglecting the Divine-worship and by other perverse works and that by Reason of those ill dispositions the Devil was let loose against the present State of the Church Now none of them who are called to the Pastors Charge and the Cure of Souls inform themselves either of the quality of their Flock or of their manners or their vices Not one Prelate called to the Government of a Monastery will take the pains to Observe either its Rules or the Order of its Ceremonies or the Discipline of the Religious there is not wholly any more mention made of the Salvation and Edification of those that are under them but they only inform themselves very exactly of the plenty of their Revenues and what such a Benefice may bring in Yearly though yet they do not reside there It is these Curates that Vincentius cri'd out upon when he said O what Obduration is there in the Church of God! The Prelats are Proud Vain Sumptuous Simonists Covetous Luxurious Men that regard only this Earth They neglect their Ecclesiastical Duties they are void of Charity Intemperate Lazy For they neither perform Divine Offices nor Preach and do nothing but what creates Scandal They despise the foresight of their Holy Mother the Church which ordains that when the Rectors of Churches shall not be able to Preach they should employ fit persons which should in their stead edify the people by their word and their Example and that they should supply them with all needful things But on the contrary the Prelats and Curates are only careful to put into their places men that are very well skilled not to feed the sheep but to poll them to destroy and flea them He goes on with that vehemency throughout a large Chapter where he relates the many complaints of the Abbot Joachim Saint Catherine of Sienna and of Saint Brigitt Behold this last among the others Those who Rule the Churches commit three sins the one is that they live a beastly and luxurious life the other that they have a Covetousness as insatiable as the Gulphs of the Sea and the third is That they are Prodigal to satisfy their own vanity as the Torrents that pour forth their waters impetuously such horrible sins which they commit ascend up to Heaven before the face of God and hinders the Intercession of Jesus Christ as the black Clouds disturb the purity of the Air The Revenues of the Church are given not to the Servants of God but to those of the Devil to the Debauchers of Women to Adulterers Gamesters Hunters Flatterers and such like men and hence also it is that the house of God is become Tributary to the Devil The Abbot who ought never to be out of his Monastery but to be the head and example to the rest of the Religious is become the head of a whole Troop of leud Women with their Trains of Bastards instead of being an Example to and feeder of the poor he makes himself Master
God lose nothing either of its Truth or its Authority 3. It is a very strange thing that the Author of the Prejudices has not taken any heed in laying down a very bad Argument against us of furnishing us with a very good one against the Church of Rome in that Estate wherein it was in the days of our Fathers For if we ought to Judge of the Doctrine by the Qualities or the Actions of those who Teach it I pray consider what Judgment could our Fathers make of that Religion that the Court of Rome and its Prelats taught and whether they had not all the grounds in the World to reform themselves If there be no likelyhood that God committed the Care of Reforming his Church to persons who were guilty of Scandalous Actions there is far less that God has given Infallibility and a Soveraign Authority over mens Consciences to such persons as the Popes and Prelats in the days of our Fathers were according to the Description which the unsuspected Authors that we have quoted give us of them and divers others that we might here add to them if we so pleased And that which makes these two Arguments differ is that his concludes upon a Principle which we maintain to be false and ill where ours concludes upon a Principle which he himself admits and acknowledges to be good so that in his own Judgment we have a sufficient Fundation whereon to Establish the Justice of our Reformation Let us see nevertheless of what Nature those Actions are wherewith he reproaches our first Reformers I will not says he stay to examine the Accusations wherewith they have been charged by divers Authors I do not pretend to detain my self in any but those publick things that are so manifest and so exposed to the Eyes of all the World I confess he has Reason not to stay upon all that which his Passion has invented against them for who knows not that Calumny has no bounds especially when interest and passion stir it up Our Reformers are not the only persons who have been attacked after that manner The Jews said of John the Baptist that he had a Devil and of Jesus Christ that he was a Blasphemer a Samaritan a glutton and a Wine-bibber a friend of Publicans and sinners If then they have called the Father of the Family Beelzebub what will they not say of his Servants But what then are those things that are so Publick so manifest and so exposed to the Eyes of the whole World which the Author of the Prejudices has found fit to be insisted upon That new Gospel says he was Preached only out of the mouths of those Monks who had quitted their habit and their profession ouly to contract Scandalous Marriages or from the mouths of those Priests who had violated that Vow of Virginity which the Calvinists themselves confess to have been imposed on all Priests and on all Monks in the West by divers Councils and on all the Monks and all the Bishops in the East and the first fruit of this Doctrine was the setting open the Cloisters the taking off the Vails of the Nuns the abolishing of all Austerities and overthrowing of all manner of discipline in the Church This is that that forces him to say That the Reformers struck mens Eyes with a Spectacle that could not but create horrour according to the common Idea's of Piety and Vertue whech the Fathers give us The Author of the Prejudices will not take it ill that in order to our Answering him we must put him in mind what he himself exhorts us to To Transport our selves into another Time then that wherein we are at present and to represent to our selves our Separation in its first rise and during the first years wherein it was made amidst the Switzers and in France Upon his thus placing us in that State which he desires we will declare to him that The general Depravation which reign'd amidst the Monks and the Priests is to our Eyes a Spectacle worthy of horror according to the common Ideas of Piety and Vertue which the holy Scriptures and right Reason give us We will tell him that that which Scandalizes us is to see that for a respect of a purely humane Order they endured for so long a time a disorder that dishonoured the Latin Church that drew upon it God's Judgments and that laid open the Ministry of the Church to an everlasting reproach It is in the detesting of those Infamies and those Impurities that the true zeal of Christians ought to consist and it is to the searching out of a solid remedy for them that one ought to apply the Discipline of the Church and not to keep them up under a pretence of observing rash Vows and a Caelibasy that God never commanded If the Author of the Prejudices is more Scandalized to see Priests and Monks Married then to see them plunged into all the filthyness of Debauchery I cannot hinder my self from telling him that he makes Christianity a Law of Hypocrisy and it may be yet somewhat worse for Hypocrisy does not content it self with meer Names she would have fair appearances without of those things which she really rejects Whereas for him he rejects not only the things but their appearances also suffering patiently the loss of any more seeing either the things or their appearances provided we do not meddle with those empty names of Caelibacy and Virginity But true Moral Christianity inspires other Sentiments she would have us honour that Caelibacy and Virginity as gifts that come from God but she would also have a Contempt and horrour for those specious names when they shall be applyed to those beastlinesses and excesses which both God and Men condemn She would have us in that Case instead of being Scandalized to see a false Caelibacy made void and a vain shadow of Virginity abolished that we should on the contrary be edified to see them got out from those snares of sin and to have recourse to a lawful Marriage that God has allowed unto all and that he has even commanded unto those who have not received the gift of Continency It was in the View of this that our Fathers lookt upon the Marriage of those Priests and Monks as the Abolishing of an unjust Law contrary to the express words of Saint Paul if they cannot contain let them Marry and which moreover had produced such mischeivous effects as it was no longer possible for them to indure But says the Author of Prejudices we do not intend to speak of the Interests of Families of Marriage nor of base and fleshly passions in the lives of those Great Bishops and all those great men of old whom God opposed to the Heresies that rose up against his Church as Saint Cyprian Saint Athanasius Saint Basil Saint Gregory Nazianzen Saint Jerome Saint Epiphanius Saint Chrysostome and Saint Augustine They were all of them eminent in Sanctity in a disingagement
from Interests and continency was always joyned to their Ministry We may say of that Author without doing him an injury that he does not write ill what he thinks but that he scarce thinks well that which he writes and that which I shall here come to shew is an Example of it for he here lays down a great Trifle under the shew of one of the fairest things in the World Saint Cyprian Saint Athanasius and those other Bishops were not Marryed I see it but who told him That they did it by vertue of a general Law that forbad Bishops to be Married Who told him that divers other Bishops who were not less great then those for their Sanctity their disengagement from the interests of the World never lived in Marriage as Saint Spiridion Saint Gregory the Father of Gregory Nazianzen Saint Gregory Nysscne Saint Prosper Saint Hilary Sydonius Apollinaris Synesius Saint Eupsychus of Cesarea and divers others Who told him that Priests were not generally Married in the Primitive Church whether it were in the East or in the West as may be justified by a Thousand Proofs And in fine that they do not vainly wrangle in saying that those Bishops or those Priests were really Married before their Ordination but that they were not during their Prelateship or Priesthood whether it were that their Wives were dead and whether they were put away it is good to Note what the History of Saint Eupsychus of Cesaria in Cappadocia relates whom Saint Athanasius formally called a Bishop suffered Martyrdom within a little after his Marriage being as yet as it seemed in the days of his Nuptials and what Saint Cyprian relates of Novatus a Priest who was accused to have kicked his Wife who was great with Child and to have caused an Abortion which evidently concludes the use of Marriage during the Prelateship and Priesthood What then can the Author of the Prejudices conclude from the Example of Saint Athanasius and Saint Chrysostome and those others unmarried unless this that each one was in that regard in his full liberty and that as there were some that did marry so there were also some that did not Did he need for so little a matter to declaim Rhetorically and to set down these great words with an Emphasis That our Reformers struck mens Eyes with a Spectacle that could not but Create horrour according to the general Idea's of Piety and Vertue that the Fatheri give us I shall not say that the Idea's of Piety and Virtue do not depend on the Fathers but on the Gospel and right Reason and that it is by them that we ought to judge the Fathers and not those by the Fathers I will not say that the Fathers of the purer Antiquity are so far from giving us an horrour at the Marriage of Ecclesiasticks that Chrysostom assures us on the contrary that what Saint Paul wrote to Titus concerning a Bishops being the Husband of one Wife he has wrote wholly to stop the months of those Hereticks who condemned Marriage and to shew that Marriage is not only an Innocent thing but that it is so Honourable also that according to him it may be elèvated as high as the Episcopal Throne But I will only say and I will say it with an assurance of its being approved by all honest and upright men that the Marriage of Church-men which of it self is an honest and Holy State practised under the Old Law practised in the primitive Church and Authorised by the Scripture cannot be considered but with the greatest Edification when it shall be set in opposition to the disorders and filthinesses that Caelibacy has produced which is but a purely humane Institution without any lawful Foundation It belongs therefore to those of the Church of Rome to tell us whether they are much edified by the lives that their Priests led in the Age of the Reformation and by that permission which they gave them for a Sum of Money publickly to keep their Concubines They are to tell us whether they have no horrour for those strange assertions of their Doctors That a Priest Sins less who through the infirmity of the flesh falls into the Sin of Fornication then if he should marry and that it is a less evil for Priests to burn then to Marry As for us we have that general precept of Saint Paul which has its use as well in respect of Church-men as others if they cannot contain let them Marry and the Doctrine of the same Apostle Marriage is Honourable in all or in all things but the Whoremongers and Adulterers God will judge But the Author of the Prejudices says That the Law of Celibacy whether it were just or unjust or whether it did not begin if they will have it so till Pope Siricius's time they cannot at least deny That the spirit of God did not carry out all the Famous Bishops of Old and those who have been eminent for Sanctity to imitate Saint Paul and to follow that Counsel which he gives to renounce Marriage to set themselves wholly to please God and that the same spirit did not from the very first Ages of the Church inspire a very great number of Christians of both Sexes to remain Virgins all their Lives as Saint Justin witnesses and Origen against Celsus Whence then comes it to pass that there should have nothing appeared of that instinct or of those motions of Gods spirit in the pretended Reformers nor in the Societies which they have established any more than all those other Graces which shone so Illustriously in the Saints of Antiquity Here is yet further another example of that which I said just before that that Author does not take too much care of that which he writes For can there be a rasher thing in the World than to offer to thrust ones self into the Counsels of God and magisterially to decide what qualities the Reformers ought to have had Continency and Virginity are the Cifts that God distributes to men as he pleases but it is what he has given only to some Persons it no ways follows either that their Persons were not acceptable to him nor that he could not make use of them in the greatest works of his Providence Abraham the Father of the Faithful as the Scripture calls him was not he Married Isaac Jacob and the twelve Patriarchs who founded the Church of Israel were not they Moses the deliverer of the Antient People by whom God gave his Law and by whom he had wrought so many Miracles was not he Aaron and all the High-Preists who succeeded him were not they All those Calls and divers others whereof the Scripture speaks were methinks most weighty and for the greatest part extraordinary and nevertheless we do not see that God in giving them has made any Reflection upon the Advice of the Authour of the Prejudices Who ever gave him a right to lay down Rules with such Authority of what God ought
of Faith from whom the Holy Scripture it self heretofore and now derives all its force he is a Heretick and many other Propositions of that nature Upon that Luther writes that All those things were maintained only out of a hatred of a General Council and to hinder any one from being heard who should give any succour to the afflicted Church That the Popes Creatures seeing well that they could not hinder a Council began to seek out ways to elude it by saying that the Pope was above a Council and that without his Authority none could either be called or held in a word that a Council had not any Power but that the Pope alone was the Infallible Rule of Truth That it seemed to him then that if the Fury of those men took place there would not further remain any other Remedy but this That the Emperour the Kings and Princes should make use of their Arms against those publick Posts and that those matters should not be decided by Words but by the Sword In the close of which he adjoyns those words which the Author of the Prejudices has related So that his meaning is not to Animate his Followers to Blood and Slaughter as the Author of the Prejudices interprets it but only to draw an absur'd consequence from his Adversaries Hypothesis which is That if he would also take away the only Remedy that was left to provide against the desolations of the Church in assembling a Free Council he would set the Emperour the Kings and Princes in Arms against the Popes and the Cardinals and all the Court of Rome and would reduce things to the utmost extremity I my self will not say that there may not be somewhat too violent in those kind of expressions but after all his design is not to animate his Followers to Blood and Slaughter but only to let Sylvester see the necessity of a Council that might judge above the Pope from that inconvenience that otherwise there would remain no other course to the Emperour to Kings and Princes to re-establish Order in the Church then to make use of their compelling power And that further appears to be the Sence because he adds immediately after That the Authority of the Bishop of Rome whether it were of Divine Right or whether it were of Human could not be urged but by the Precept Honour thy Father and thy Mother which in granting him to be a Father puts him under the first Table so that if he should do any thing in opposition to them he might be admonished and even accused by the least of the Faithful Which let us see that his meaning was no other than that which I have represented I confess it were to be wished that Luther had observed more of the mean than he did in his manner of writing and that with that great and invincible Courage joyned with that ardent zeal for the Truth and with that unshaken Constancy that he always shewed there might have been discernable more of stayedness and moderation But those faults which most frequently proceed from Temperament do not take away mens esteem of such when besides them they may see a good foundation of Piety in them and Vertues Heroical throughout as they may discern-to have shone in Luther For they cannot cease extolling the zeal of Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari nor admiring the eminent qualities of Saint Jerom although they do acknowledge too much sharpness and passion in their Style And it may be that there was even some particular necessity in the time of the Reformation to use vehemency of expression the more easily to rouse men out of that profound sleep wherein they had lain for so long a time However it be I had rather come to agree that Luther ought to have been more moderate in his expressions and if the Authour of the Prejudices would be coutented with complaining of the sharpness of his Style he should be also contented for every answer to be entreated that hereafter he will not himself any more imitate that which he condemns in another especially in writing against those who having lived in the last Age cannot have given him any personal occasion to be carried away against them with passion after the manner that he has been in many places of his Book If in the Judgment that he passes on them he would not hearken to Charity he ought at least to hearken to Justice and not to have charged them with foul Accusations under the pretences of having mistaken and misunderstood I place in this Rank that which he furthers forms against Luther in these words There never was any one says he but Luther who durst to boast in his Printed Works that he had had a long conference with the Devil that he had been convinced by his reasons that private Masses were an abuse and that that was the motive that had carried him out to abolish them But common Sence adds he has always made all others conclude not only that he was in an excess of extravagance to take the Devil for a Master of Truth and to give himself up to be his Disciple but that all those who had any marks that they were his Ministers and his Instruments and who had not any lawful Authority in the Church to make themselves be heard did not deserve that any should apply themselves to them or that they should so much as examine their Opinions Behold here Luther a Disciple a Minister and Instrument of the Devil if one will believe the Author of the Prejudices To refute that Calumny we need but to represent in a few words what that business was that he there speaks of Luther following the Style of the Monks of those days who were wont by a Figure of Rhetorick to fill their Books with their exploits against the Devil relates that being one time awakened in the midst of a dark night the Devil began to accuse him for having made the people of God Idolatrize and to have been guilty of Idolatry himself for the space of fifteen years wherein he had said private Masses and that the Reason of that Accusation was that he could not have any thing consecrated in those private Masses from whence it followed that he had adored and had made others adore meer Bread and meer Wine and not the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ He adds that that accusation struck him at his heart and that to defend himself he alledged that he was a Priest that he had done nothing but by the Order of his Superiors and that he had always pronounced the words of Consecration very exactly with the best intention in the World from whence he concluded that he could see no reason to have the Crime of Idolatry laid to his Charge That notwithstanding the Tempter did not fail to reply that those excuses would nothing avail him in that the Turks and the Priests of Baal obeyed also the Order of their Superiours with a very good
themselves if they should yield any obedience to their Soveraigns On the other side Clement VII who kept his seat at Avignon was not wanting to proceed against Vrban and his Followers and to Treat him and his Party with the same heat that Vrban had shew'd against him See here differences which were methinks sufficiently heightned Notwithstanding whatsoever Animosity there was there between those two parties whatsoever Wars they made one against another whatsoever Anathema's they mutually thundred out the Church of Rome has not failed to own and Canonize for Saints those person who lived and died in those two contrary Obediences and who even died in the hottest Quarrels of those two Anti-Popes For she has Canonized on the one side Saint Catherine of Siena who took part with Vrban and who Treated his competitor as Anti-Christ and a member of the Devil and his Cardinals as Devils incarnate and on the other side she has Canonized Peter of Luxemburg who died the Cardinal of Clement VII and who had received that Dignity from his hands against the express prohibition of Vrban VI. under pain of Excommunication so that here are two Saints on the one and the other side lawfully Excommunicated Mr. Daille in his Answer to the Monsieurs Adam and Cottiby intending to retort this same Objection that the Author of the Prejudices gives us has set before us the Example of Saint Jerome and Saint Cyril of Alexandria who were cruelly and passionately carried out against Saint John Chrysostom so far as to compare his fall to the fall of Babylon and to call him Traytor Judas Jechonias he has also alledged the Example of Stephen Bishop of Rome who in the Quarrel that he had with Saint Cyprian calls him a false Christ a false Apostle and deceitful worker But the Author of the Prejudices does not think that these Examples are to the purpose He says That the Difference between Saint Chrysostome and Saint Jerome and Saint Cyril respected only personal Actions in which none ever denied but that it might happen to the Saints themselves to be surprized in respect of one another But this is only a shift for if we may understand that it has hapned to the Saints to be violently carried out against another Saint after the fiercest manner in the World upon personal differences which have no other Foundations then a Surprise I see not why we may not also understand that it may happen to good men to be violently carried out against one another about the points of Religion which afford a more just pretence of Animosity when each thinks he has the Truth of his side Before I let go this Example I cannot forbear noting by the by that it is but very ill to the purpose that the Author of the Prejudices censures M. Daille for having said that Theophilus of Alexandria and Epiphanius had condemned Excommunicated and deposed Chrysostom from his Bishoprick for it is evident to those who are not ignorant of History that Theophilus condemned and deposed him and that Epiphanius being gone to Constantinople before that same condemnation refused to hold Communion with Chrysostom which is precisely that which M. Daille would have said But the Author of the Prejudices does not Answer me better upon the Quarrel of Saint Cyprian and Stephen Their difference says he was only upon a point which had not then been decided by the Church This Evasion is very pittiful The more trivial the occasion is about which one is violent that passion is both the more blameable and the prejudice against the persons who are so carried away with it is the better grounded To Answer after that manner aggravates the passion of Stephen in stead of excusing it Stephen adds he who had more reason at the bottom was carried out by the ardour of his Zealonly to some threats of Excommunication Or if you will to an Excommunication which having had no ground would have produced no real division and would not have hindred but that Saint Cyprian should still have been honoured by the Church of Rome and Saint Stephen by that of Africa It is not certain that Stephen had more reason at the bottom then Saint Cyprian on the contrary there were in their days as many Hereticks at least whose Baptism ought to have been rejected as there was whose ought to have been admitted And as for the rest whether Stephen had in effect Excommunicated Saint Cyprian or whether he had meerly threatned it what is that to our Question If he contented himself with a meer Threatning of it he remained in Communion with a man whom he called a false Christ a. false Apostle a. deceitful Worker and with a man whom on his part he accused of Stupidity of Pride of Obstinacy of Presumption of Folly of blindness of Mind and of Wickedness He abode in Communion with Firmilianus who had the same interests with Saint Cyprian and who also accused Stephen of Inhumanity Boldness of Insolence of Schism and manifest Folly who compared him to Judas and said of him that he took part with Hereticks If he actually Excommunicated them it further notes the excess of his Passion which could not in effect have been Judged to have been less then a Passion and a violent heat since according to the Author of the Prejudices himself it would have had no ground and would not have hindred but that Saint Cyprian should have been always honoured by the Church of Rome Since the Author of the Prejudices was in the way to refute the Answer of M. Daille it had possibly more conduced to the publick Edification if in stead of shallowly insisting on those remote Examples he had applied himself to that wherein M. Daille adjoyns the fierce injuries wherewith the Divines of the Roman Church may be every day seen to rend one another although they then remain and though they yet live in one and the same Communion They acknowledge one another for Brethren they assist at the same Altars they call upon the same Saints and yet nevertheless as M. Daille relates they write one against another after the most passionate and violent manner in the World One sort of them say of their Adversaries That they were infected with Heresies and were Enemies of the Apostolick See and that their Opinion was full of Heresie and Perfidiousness That it was Presumptious Injurious to the State of the Religious and that it savoured of Calvinism and to speak Plainly that it was Erroneous in the Faith that it openly stifled the word of God and the Authority of the Fathers that it was blasphemous against Jesus Christ and all the Saints plainly and evidently Heretical and contrary to the Council of Trent The others say on the contrary That the Propositions which they have laid down were false rash presumptious pernitious to all faithful People that they were Erroneous and injurious to the Bishops tending to overthrow or disturb the Hierarchy and that
of it but they would have subordinate heads humane heads on whom they might depend by an external dependance and that was necessary for them to be by that means linked to Jesus Christ after the same manner that they would have us at this day to depend on the See of Rome Wherefore did S. Paul say to them Is Christ divided Why did he not say to them that as for Paul and Apollos they had no reason to take them for their heads but that it was far otherwise as to Peter since God had set up him and his Successors for ever to be the heads of the Universal Church Why in stead of that did he conclude after this manner That no one should glory in men for all things are yours whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come all are yours and ye are Christs and Christ is Gods Is it not to let them understand that Jesus Christ is the only head of the Church that there is only his communion that is absolutely necessary and that as for other Ministers whosoever they were they were appointed for our use as all other things to serve us in as much as they lead us to Jesus Christ If the Church under the New Testament ought to be inviolably ty'd to the See of Rome how should the Scripture have been silent in so weighty a truth which could not be ignor'd without extream danger nor contested without evident damnation Notwithstanding we do not find any other head of the Church in those Sacred Books but Jesus Christ nor any other High Priest but him We do not find in the Scripture any Universal Bishop nor Ministerial head or subordinate or any particular Church the Mistress of all others We find there indeed that Jesus Christ being ascended up on high gave some to be Apostles others to be Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers for the assembling of the Saints for the work of the Ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ How came the Apostle to forget in that Enumeration the chief of all Offices to wit that of the Ministerial Head of the whole Church and the Universal Vicar of Jesus Christ in the Government and conduct of his flock If the Christian Church ought in that to resemble the Synagogue and to have as that a Soveraign High Priest upon earth who should be the head of that Religion and who should have his Successors as the ancient High Priest had whence comes it that the Scripture has alwayes regarded that Ancient High Priest as a Figure of Jesus Christ that it alwayes referred it to him and never to the Roman Bishops nor even to S. Peter who was then alive and who should by consequence have exercised that pretended charge which they would make to descend from him There is therefore no lawful foundation in all that pretension of Rome and her See We ought to pass the same judgement on all other Sees and other particular Churches with which it is just we should hold communion while they teach good and sound Doctrine and that we should even bear with them when they should fall into some errors provided they constrain no body to believe them but from which it is also just to separate our selves when they shall fall into errors contrary to the communion of Jesus Christ our only Saviour and when they would violently force all others to believe the same If in a long course of Ages Rome has usurped by little and little the rights that do not belong to her if she has found it very easie through the ignorance or complaisance of men in the diverse intrigues of the World to raise her Throne as high as our Fathers beheld it and as we do yet at this day If her flatterers have not failed alwayes to raise her pretensions as high as Heaven and if she has been lull'd asleep with the sound of those sweet charms that enchant her we do not believe that that ought to prejudice our separation We have no other aversion for her communion than that which our conscience gives us and if it shall please God to re-establish her in her ancient purity she would not have so great a joy to spread forth her arms to us as we should have an impatience to demand her peace of her But as long as we shall see her in that bad state wherein we are perswaded she is we cannot but bewail and pray for her and yet notwithstanding no body can blame us for preferring our own salvation to her communion CHAP. III. That the Conduct of the Court of Rome and those of her party in respect of the Protestants has given them a just cause to separate themselves from them supposing that they had had right at the foundation BEfore we leave this matter of our Separation from the Church of Rome there yet remains two Questions for us to examine the one Whether our Fathers were not too precipitate in so great an affair whether they did not act with too much haste or Whether they had sufficient motives from the conduct of those from whom they separated to forsake in the end their communion The other Whether with all that they can say that they separated themselves from the communion of the Catholick Church spread over the whole World as the Donatists did heretofore and whether they did not fall into the same crime with those ancient Schismaticks against whom Optatus and S. Augustine so strongly disputed I will treat of this second Question in the following Chapter and this here shall be design'd to the clearing of the former To effect this methinks we need but freely to set before their eyes all that I have said in the second Part touching the necessity that lay upon our Fathers to reform themselves For since it clearly results from those matters of fact which I have set down that the Popes and those of their party were so far from applying themselves seriously to a Reformation that they studied on the contrary only how to stifle the truth from the very first moment they beheld it appear and to defend their Errors and Superstitions by all manner of wayes who sees not that that inflexible resolution which had not yielded either to the first or second admonition rendred from that time the separation of our Fathers just and exempted them from all reproach For when there are Errors capable of giving ground for a separation it ought to be defer'd only upon a hope of amendment and that hope seem'd to be sufficiently destroy'd by those Historical actions which I have already set down Notwithstanding to shew them more and more how the conduct of our Fathers was very prudent in that respect and full of circumspection it will not be besides our purpose to resume here the close of their story from the unjust condemnation of Luther and his Doctrine made by Pope Leo the Tenth
House not only Vessels of Gold and Silver but Vessels also of Wood and Earth the one to Honour and the others to Dishonour They must wilfully shut their Eyes that will not acknowledge by these Passages that it is only to the Church of the Faithful and not to the Body of the Prelates that that Father refers all the Efficacy and Force of the Actions of the Ministry and all the Power of the Keys But further if you will he explains himself yet more expresly in the same Book out of which I have taken these last Words Hitherto says he I have methinks clearly enough demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures and by the Testimony of Saint Cyprian that the Wicked who have undergone no change in their Natural Estate may both give and receive Baptism Notwithstanding it is manifest that those men do not belong to the Church of God since they are Covetous Extortioners Vsurers Envious Malicious and Enslaved by such like Vices for the Church is the only Dove that is modest and Chast the Spouse without Spot and Wrinkle the Inclosed Garden the Sealed Fountain the Paradice full of Fruits and such other Titles that are given it can be understood of none but the Good the Saints and the Righteous that is to say those in whom not only the Operations of the Gifts of God are found that are common to the good and bad but who have also the inward and Supernatural Grace of the Holy Spirit It is to those that it is said Whosoevers Sins you shall remit they shall be remitted and whosoever Sins you retain they shall be retained I do not then see why we may not say that a wicked man may Administer Baptism since he may have it and as he has it to his ruine he may give it to others also to their ruine not because that that which he gives may be a Pernicious thing but because that he himself who receives it is a wicked man For when a wicked man gives Baptism to a good man who dwelling in the bond of Vnity is truly Converted the wickedness of him who gives it is overcome by the goodness of the Sacrament and the Faith of him who receives it and when his Sins are pardoned who is truly Converted to God they are pardoned to him by those with whom he is joyned by a true Conversion For the same Holy Spirit which was given to the Saints with whom he is united by the bond of Love is he who pardons them whether he knows that Body or whether he knows it not And so when the Sins of any are retained they are retained by those from whom they are separated by the Difference of their Lives and the Malice of their Hearts whether they know that Body or whether they do not It could not methinks be said either with greater strength or Clearness that all the Efficacy of the Actions of the Ministry that the Pastors Exercise depends not on the Body of the Pastors but on the Body of the truly Faithful and that in Effect they are those who pardon and retain Sins when the Ministers pardon or retain them From whence it necessarily follows That if the same Actions of the Ministry belong to the Society of the Faithful the Call of the Ministry does so also with a far greater Reason for if the Power of the Keys the right of Remitting and Retaining Sins belongs to the body of the Faithful only it must be every way necessary that the Pastors should hold the exercise of that Power from the body of the Faithful for if they should not hold it from thence they would have no Right to exercise it nor could have it elsewhere And if they should have it elsewhere or that it should belong properly to the body of the Pastors exclusively from the Simple Faithful it would be not only not true but it would be further absurd to say that the body of the Faithful exercised that Power by the Pastors or that they pardoned and retained Sins as Saint Augustine teaches I cannot avoid taking notice here by the by of that Ordinary Error whereinto those of the Church of Rome fall who do not believe that immediate absolute and Independent Authority that the Pope ascribes to himself over the whole Church but who would that the Power of the Keys is given to the whole Body of the Hierarchy that is to say to those Pastors who are Priests and Bishops For to prove their Opinion they do not fail to set the Sentiment of St. Augustine before us which plainly as we have seen shews us that the Keys were given to the whole Church from whence they draw two Conclusions The one against that great Authority that the Pope pretends to and the other for the Authority of the Bishops which they would have to flow immediately from Jesus Christ But of these two Conclusions it is certain that the First is just and wholly conforming with the thoughts of that Father but it is not less certain that the second is not and that at least without going about to deceive our selves willingly or to cheat the World we could not say that That Church figured by St. Peter to which God gave the Power of the Keys which is exercised by the Ministry of the Pastors should be any other according to Saint Augustine then the Body of the Truly Faithful and Righteous in opposition to the Worldly and the wicked who are mixed with them in the same External Profession and this is in my Judgment so clear and evident in the Doctrine of that Father that they must needs be ignorant of it who deny it It is therefore a manifest Illusion to go about to make use of those Passages in favour of the Bishops for that Church is not the Body of the Hierarchy but that of the Truly Faithful whether they be Laymen or Pastors and it is to those only that Saint Augustine ascribes all the Rights and all the Actions of the Ministry as it may appear by what I have related and by consequence it is to those that the lawful Call of the Pastors belongs and not to the Body or Order of the Hierarchy For it would be absurd to derive that Call from any thing else then from that very Church which has received the Power of the Keys and which is exercised in her Name and her Authority by her Ministers Tosta us Bishop of Abyla seems to have acknowledged this Truth conformably to the Principles of Saint Augustine for see after what manner he explains himself in his Commentaries upon Numbers upon the story of the man who was brought before the whole Assembly of Israel because some had found him gathering of Sticks upon the Sabbath Day and put him in Prison for it First of all he says That although the Acts of Jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the whole Community yet that Jurisdiction belongs to the whole Community in regard of its Origine and Efficacy because
the Magistrates receive their Jurisdiction from it He adds afterwards That it is the same in the Keys of the Church that Jesus Christ gave them to the whole Church in the person of Saint Peter And that it is the Church that Communicates them to the Prelats but which notwithstanding Communicates them without depriving it self of them so that says he the Church has them and the Prelats have them but in a different manner for the Church has them in respect of Origine and Vertue and the Prelats have them only in respect of Vse The Church has them vertually because she can give them to a Prelate by Election and she has them Originally also For the Power of a Prelate does not take its origine from it self but from the Church by means of the Eelction that it makes of him The Church that chose him gives him that Jurisdiction but as for the Church it receives it from no Body after its having once received it from Jesus Christ The Church therefore has the Keys Originally and Virtually and whenever she gives them to a Prelate she does not give them to him after the manner that she has them to wit Originally and Virtually but she gives them him only as to Vse To this we may add that some Councils of these latter Ages as those of Constance and Basil seem to have acted themselves upon this Principle when they gave themselves the Title of Representing the whole Universal Church Vniversalem Ecclesiam Representans For to what end did they take that specious Title if they would not acknowledge that the Origine of the Authority of the Prelats or the Pastors is in the Body of the whole Society and that it is from thence that it is transmitted to them to exercise it in the name of the whole Body But that which is most considerable is That it appears from the Testimony of the Holy Scripture that the Body of the Church that is to say the faithful people in opposition to the Pastors has taken part from the beginning in the Acts of its proper Government and particularly in the Calls of Ministers which evidently notes that it is a natural Right that belongs to it For that when after the Apostacy and Tragical Death of Judas they were to substitute another Apostle in his place Jesus Christ not having done it immediately by himself before his Ascention the History of the Acts relates that the whole Church which then only Consisted in an hundred and twenty Persons was Assembled and that upon the Proposal that Saint Peter made to them they appointed two upon whom the Lot having been cast and falling upon Matthias with a common consent he was put into the number of the Apostles They were there about the Call of an Apostle that is to say of a Minister who ought to come immediately from God and therefore it was that they cast the Lot but because the Church was then formed and that Jesus Christ being no more corporally present upon Earth those Calls could not be made wholly and immediately by him men took some part in them for by their Election they limited the Lot to two persons and in the end declared by their acquiesence that they look'd upon the Declaration of the Lot as if it had been the very voice of Jesus Christ This is all the part that men could take there but it was not only the Apostles who did those two things it was the whole Body of the Church The History notes that the Assembly was about an hundred and twenty persons that Saint Peter made a Proposal to them that upon that Proposal of Saint Peter they presented Two Joseph and Matthias and that the Lot falling upon Matthias he was numbred with the Eleven Apostles by common Agreement that is to say by the common consent of all That evidently shews us that the Body of the Faithful and not meerly the Body of the Pastors is the Right source of Calls The same things appear in the Call of the Seven Deacons for the Story expresly notes that the murmuring of the Greeks against the Hebrews falling out and giving occasion to the Apostles to think of that Call they called the multitude of the Disciples and that when they had made a Proposal to them the Assembly approved of it and that in the end they chose seven persons whom they presented to the Apostles who after having prayed to God laid their hands on them But that further le ts us see from whence a Lawful Call proceeds to wit from the Body of the Faithful and not meerly from the Body of the Pastors for it was the whole Assembly that approved of the Proposal of the Apostles and that chose and not the Apostles alone who did nothing else but propose and lay their hands on them This is further justified by the Practice of the Apostles which would readily admit the people in the most weighty Affairs that respected the Government of the Church into their deliberations and Acts when that might be done without Confusion So in the First Council of Jerusalem the Question being ventilated whether the Observation of the Ceremonies of the Law was necessary to the Gentiles it is said that it pleased the Apostles and Elders or Presbyters for it is the same thing with the whole Church to send to Antioch and write to the Church there That Letter was in effect written in the name of all and sent to all indifferently The Apostles and Elders and Brethren unto the Brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Cyria and Cilicia and it is expreslynoted that when Jude and Silas who were the bearers of that Letter were arrived at Antioch they Assembled the multitude that is to say the people and there acquitted themselves of their Commission which distinctly shews that the people then took cognizance of the matters of Religion and that they interven'd in publick Deliberations So when Saint Paul would Excommunicate the Incestuous person of Corinth he calls the Church to that Action In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit let such a man be delivered unto Satan for the Destruction of the Flesh that the Body may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus which notes the same thing Those who have read the writings of Saint Cyprian Bishop of Carthage cannot be ignorant that that great Saint governed his Church by the common Suffrages not only of his whole Clergy but of all his people also and that he consulted with them in the most weighty Affairs since he has declared it himself in divers places of his writings I could not saies he in one of his Epistles to his Clergy answer to that which our Brethren Donatus Fortunatus Novatus and Gordius have wrote to me because I am alone for from the first entrance into my Bishoprick I purposed to do nothing of my self without your Counsel and the Consent
the Churches and not those private mens who Communicated it they were bound to refer theirs to the greatest Glory of God and the Edification of his Church and not to the Wills and Interests of the Court of Rome and its Prelates altho' ir was through their Channel that they had received it They did well therefore to make use of that which they had of good in their Call to purify that which was bad in it and they also did well to make use of it against the ill intention of those who had given it them for an ill end even as those who have received Baptism from an Heretical or Schismatical Society are bound by that same Baptism which they have received from them to oppose themselves as much as possibly they can to that Heresy or Schism and to make use of their very Baptism for it altho' it should be against the intention of those who gave it to them I acknowledge also that there were some few who received their Call immediately from the Churches hand I would say the Body of the faithful people and we may say of those that their Call was extraordinary in the sense that we call unusual things Extraordinary which happen very rarely and which are done against Custom and ordinary practice For howsoever that those Calls were not unlawfully made and without Right as I have proved in the foregoing Chapter it is notwithstanding True that it is not nor ought to be the Common Practice and that it has no place but in a case of absolute Necessity So also in the Church of Rome the Call of Martin V. may be said to be Extraordinary who was called to the Papacy immediately by the whole Body of the Latin Prelates assembled in the Council of Constance and not by the Colledge of Cardinals as it is ordinarily done As to those Ministers who succeeded them and who received their Ordination from the hands of the first Reformers their Call was without doubt Ordinary and conformable to the practice of the Antient Church according to the Idea that the Scripture gives us of it and all that it can have of Extraordinary consists in this that in the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters they have not followed them and it is the Presbytery and not the Bishop who gives the Ordination but in that very thing they did nothing remote from that which was practised in the Apostolick Church acording to the Idea of it that the Scripture furnishes us with since Saint Paul saith in express terms concerning Timothy That he had received it by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery I do not here enter upon the Question whether that Distinction is of Divine or only of Humane Right I will say something to that in the close I do not so much as blame those who observe it as a thing very Antient and I would not have it made a matter of difference in those places wherein it is established but I say where that Distinction is not observed as it is not nor can be amongst the Protestants of this Kingdom their Call will not cease to be lawful since besides the Case of absolute necessity which sufficiently dispences with that Form besides that neither the Bishop nor the Presbyter are of themselves any more than Executors of the Will of the Church in that Regard and not the Masters of that Call besides that I say there is a Formal Text of the Apostle that justifies the Right that the Church has to give the Imposition of hands by the Presbytery which alone is sufficient to stop the mouth of all Contradiction whatsoever That being so explained we may easily see what we ought to answer to all those petty Objections of which the Author of the Prejudices has composed his fourth and fifth Chapters Some says he were called to the Ministry and made Pastors only by Lay-men others were ordained by Priests only and those who had been Ordained by Bishops lifted themselves up against their Ordainers and that Church which had given them their Mission I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that those who were called by Lay-men that is to say by the whole Body of the Church had a sufficient Call That which I have also said concerning those who received their Ordination from the Presbytery does not leave any more difficulty and as to those who resisted their own Ordainers I have shewn that they did nothing in all that whereunto their very Office did not bind them We may see saith he yet further by the thirty first Article of their Confession of Faith that it was upon this supposition of a power given immediately by God to these men Extraordinarily sent to Order the Church a new that all their pretended Reformation is founded That Article of our Confession of Faith says not that the Church had absolutely perished nor that the Ministry was intirely extinguished but that the Church was fallen into Ruine and Desolation and that its State was interrupted which only shews that she as well as the Ministry under which she was were both in the greatest Corruption and this is that which we also hold It says not that God had given an immediate Mission to the Reformers but that God had raised them up after an extraordinary manner to order the Church a new That signifies that God by his Providence gave them Extaordinary Gifts to undertake so great a Work as that of the Reformation was and that he accompanied them with his Blessing All that includes neither a new Revelation nor a new immediate Mission and hinders not that the Right which they had to employ themselves in it should not be annexed to their Charge and that it should not be common not only to all the Pastors but even to all Christians as I have shewn in my Second part Their Discipline adds he Ordains that the Priests of the Roman Church who upon turning of Calvinists should be Elected to the Office of Ministers should receive a new Imposition of hands which shews that they suppose their precedent Mission to be Null and so that that which Luther and Zuinglius Received from the Church of Rome signify'd nothing whence it follows that that which they ascribe to them can be no other than Extraordinary There is a great Difference between the Call which was given before the Reformation and that which is at this day given in the Roman Church since those Two Communions are separated The Former was indeed very much corrupted but yet nevertheless it supposes the consent of the whole Latin Church and it was not given by a Party so confirmed in Errour where the second supposes no other than the consent of a Party so confirmed in those Errours which we believe to be most contrary to the Purity of the Gospel which makes the matter so that our Society can no more look upon it as a Lawfull Call in regard of it and its Service Besides that when
of their Ministers says the Author of the Prejudices some Passages of Scripture that clearly give Lay-men a Right to ordain Ministers in any case That demand is but a vain wrangling for when the Scripture recommends to the Faithful the taking diligent heed to the Preservation and Confirmation of their Faith and to propagate it to their Children it gives them clearly enough by that very thing a sufficient Right to make use of all the means that are proper for that and that are naturally appointed to it But every one knows that the Ministry is one of those means whence it follows that the Obligation that the Scripture layes upon the Faithful people in that respect includes that of creating it self its Pastors when it is not possible that they should have them otherwise for that he that ordains the end ordains also by consequence the means that are naturally appointed for that end When the Scripture commands that all things be done with Order in the Church it gives by that very thing clearly enough a sufficient Right to the Church to make its Pastors when it has none and when it can have none but by that way since it is clear that Pastors belong to that Order In fine when the Scripture teaches that the Faithful people have a Right to chuse their Pastors it teaches clearly enough by that very thing that they have also a Right themselves to instal them in their Office in a case of necessity for that Call consisting much more Essentially in Election than in Installation which is but a Formality there is no reason to believe that God would have given the people a Right to have chosen their Pastors and to have made them be install'd by other Pastors and that he has not given them at the same time that of installing them themselves when it cannot be done otherwise since naturally that which we have a Right to do by another we have a Right to do by our selves As to those who were ordained by meer Priests can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant that the Distinction of a Bishop and a Priest or Minister as if they had two differing Offices is not only a thing that they cannot prove out of the Scripture but that even contradicts the express words of the Scripture where Bishops and Priests are the names of one and the same Office from whence it follows that the Priests having by their first Institution a Right to confer Ordination that Right cannot be taken from them by meerly humane Rules Can the Author of the Prejudices be ignorant that Saint Jerome Hilary the Deacon and after them Hincmar wrote formarly touching the Unity or as they speak the Identity of a Priest and a Bishop in the beginning of the Church and about the first rise of that distinction which was afterwards made of them into two different charges Can he be ignorant that Saint Augustine himself writing to Saint Jerome refers that difference not to the first Institution of the Ministry but meerly to an Ecclesiastical use Although says he that by different Terms of honour the custom of the Church has now brought in the Episcopacy to be above the Priesthood yet Augustine is in many things beneath Jerome Can he be ignorant that some Fathers Teach us that the Ordination of a Priest and a Bishop are but one and the same Ordination and not two which distinctly shews that they are but one and the same Office And as to the right of making Ordinations can the Author of the Prejudices deny that Saint Paul speaks of the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery Can he deny that the Priests did not heretofore ordain as well as the Bishops Does not Eutychius Patriarch of Alexandria relate that Saint Mark setting up Ananias to be Patriarch of that same Church of Alexandria established also twelve Priests with him to the end says he that when the See should be vacant it should be filled by one of them and that the Eleven that remain'd should lay their hands on him and bless and create the Patriarch and that afterwards they should chuse another man and make him a Priest in the place of him who should be chosen Patriarch and that by that means the number of Twelve might remain always compleat And does not Saint Jerome more Antient then Eutychius say to the same sence that at Alexandria down from Saint Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclius and Dionysius Bishops the Priests alwayes took out one from among themselves whom they set in the highest Seat and called him Bishop after the same manner says he as an Army makes an Emperour or as if the Deacons should chuse one out of themselves and call him their Arch-Deacon Does not Cassian relate the story of a certain young man named Daniel who liv'd among the Monks of Egypt about the year 420. and who was first made Deacon and in the end Priest by his Abbot called Paphnutius who was himself but a Priest Does not Baronius himself say after Anastasius that after the Death of Pope Vigilius in the year 555. Pelagius his Successor received his Ordination at the hands of two Bishops and a Priest of Ostia named Andrew Which shews that even then the Priests were not wholly excluded the Right of Ordination They were not yet absolutely so in the seventh Century since we learn from Bede's History That the Monks and Priests of the Isle of Jovan in Scotland not only ordained Priests among them but even Bishops also and that they sent them into England and that those Bishops were under their Abbot who was himself but a meer Priest It is therefore a Right that is naturally belonging to the Priests and of which they cannot be deprived by humane Constitution and Orders which cannot hinder that Right from alwayes remaining annexed to their Office and that they may not reducs it into Act when the necessity of the Church requires it In effect William Bishop of Paris has made no scruple to say according to his Hypothesis That if there were no more but three meer Priests in the World one of them must needs consecrate the other to be a Bishop and the other to be an Arch-Bishop And to speak my own Thoughts freely it seems to me that that firm opinion of the absolute necessity of Episcopacy that goes so high as to own no Church or Call or Ministry or Sacraments or Salvation in the World where there are no Episcopal Ordinations although there should be the True Faith the True Doctrine and Piety there and which would that all Religion should depend on a Formality and even on a Formality that we have shewn to be of no other than Humane Institution that Opinion I say cannot be lookt on otherwise then as the very worst character and mark of the highest Hypocricy a piece of Pharisaism throughout that strains at a Gnat when it swallows a Camel and I cannot avoid having at least a contempt of