Diocess Saint James had priority of order before him vers 9. And when 1 James 2 Cephas and 3 John c. First James before Cephas and Saint Peter Saint James also was President of that Synod which the Apostles convocated at Jerusalem about the Question of Circumcision as is to be seen Acts 15. to him Saint Paul made his address Acts 21. to him the Brethren carried him where he was found sitting in his Colledge of Presbyters there he was alwayes resident and his seat fixt and that he lived Bishop of Jerusalem for many years together is clearly testified by all the faith of the Primitive Fathers and Historians But of this hereafter 3. Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians I have sent unto you Epaphroditus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 My Compeer and your Apostle Gradum Apostolatûs recepit Epaphroditus saith Primasius and what that is we are told by Theodoret dictus Philippensium Apostolus à S. Paulo quid hoc aliud nisi Episcopus Because he also had received the Office of being an Apostle among them saith Saint Hierom upon the same place and it is very observable that those Apostles to whom our blessed Saviour gave immediate substitution are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Jesus Christ but those other men which were Bishops of Churches and called Apostles by Scripture are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostles of Churches or sometime Apostles alone but never are intitled of Jesus Christ. Other of the Apostles saw I none but James the Lord Brother Gal. 1. There S. James the Bishop of Jerusalem is called an Apostle indefinitely But S. Paul calls himself often the Apostle of Jesus Christ not of man neither by man but by Jesus Christ. So Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ but S. James in his Epistle to the Jews of the dispersion writes not himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 James the Servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Further yet S. Paul although as having an immediate calling from Christ to the office of Apostolate at large calls himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ yet when he was sent to preach to the Gentiles by the particular direction indeed of the Holy Ghost but by Humane constitution and imposition of hands in relation to that part of his Office and his cure of the uncircumcision he limits his Apostolate to his Diocess and calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle of the Gentiles as Saint Peter for the same reason and in the same modification is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The Apostle of those who were of the Circumcision And thus Epaphroditus is called the Apostle of the Philippians who clearly was their Bishop as I shall shew in the sequel that is he had an Apostolate limited to the Diocess of Philippi Paulatim verò tempore procedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium autem existimo Epaphroditum c. So Saint Jerome In process of time others besides those whom the Lord had chosen were ordained Apostles and particularly he instances in Epaphroditus from the authority of this instance adding also that by the Apostles themselves Judas and Silas were called Apostles 4. Thus Titus and some other with him who came to Jerusalem with the Corinthian benevolence are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches Apostles I say in the Episcopal sence They were none of the twelve they were not of immediate divine mission but of Apostolick ordination they were actually Bishops as I shall shew hereafter Titus was Bishop of Crete and Epaphroditus of Philippi and these were the Apostles for Titus came with the Corinthian Epaphroditus with the Collossian liberality Now these men were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Messengers in respect of these Churches sending them with their contributions 1. Because they are not called the Apostles of these Churches to wit whose alms they carried but simply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Churches viz. of their own of which they were Bishops For if the title of Apostle had related to their mission from these Churches it is unimaginable that there should be no term of relation expressed 2. It is very clear that although they did indeed carry the benevolence of the several Churches yet Saint Paul not those Churches sent them And we have sent with them our Brother c. 3. They are called Apostles of the Churches not going from Corinth with the money but before they came thither from whence they were to be dispatch'd in legation to Jerusalem If any inquire of Titus or the Brethren they are the Apostles of the Church and the glory of Christ. So they were Apostles before they went to Corinth not for their being imployed in the transportation of their charity So that it is plain that their Apostolate being not relative to the Churches whose benevolence they carried and they having Churches of their own as Titus had Crete Epaphroditus had Philippi their Apostolate was a fixt residence and superintendency of their several Churches SECT V. And Office BUT in holy Scripture the identity of the ordinary office of Apostleship and Episcopacy is clearer yet For when the holy Spirit had sent seven Letters to the seven Asian Bishops the Angel of the Church of Ephesus is commended for trying them which say they are Apostles and are not and hath found them liars This Angel of the Church of Ephesus as Antiquity hath taught us was at that time Timothy or Gaius the first a Disciple the other had been an entertainer of the Apostles and either of them knew them well enough it could not be that any man should dissemble their persons and counterfeit himself Saint Paul or Saint Peter And if they had yet little trying was needful to discover their folly in such a case and whether it was Timothy or Gaius he could deserve but small commendations for the meer believing of his own eyes and memory Besides the Apostles except Saint John all were then dead and he known to live in Paâ—mos known by the publick attestation of the sentence of relegation ad insulam These men therefore dissembling themselves to be Apostles must dissemble an ordinary function not an extraordinary person And indeed by the concurse of story place and time Diotrephes was the Man Saint John chiefly pointed at For he seeing that at Ephesus there had been an Episcopal chair plac'd and Timothy a long while possess'd of it and perhaps Gaius after him if we may trust Dorotheus and the like in some other Churches and that Saint John had not constituted Bishops in all other Churches of the lesser Asia but kept the Jurisdiction to be ministred by himself would arrogantly take upon him to be a Bishop without Apostolical ordination obtruding himself upon the
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
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
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
the main observation * Thus also it was in the Church of Ephesus for Saint Paul writing to their Bishop and giving order for the constitution and deportment of the Church Orders and Officers gives directions first for Bishops then for Deacons Where are the Presbyters in the interim Either they must be comprehended in Bishops or in Deacons They may as well be in one as the other for Diaconus is not in Scripture any more appropriated to the inferiour Clergy than Episcopus to the Superiour nor so much neither For Episcopus was never used in the new Testament for any but such as had the care regiment and supra-vision of a Church but Diaconus was used generally for all Ministeries But yet supposing that Presbyters were included under the word Episcopus yet it is not because the Offices and Orders are one but because that the order of a Presbyter is comprehended within the dignity of a Bishop And then indeed the compellation is of the more principal and the Presbyter is also comprehended for his conjunction and involution in the Superiour which was the Principal observation here intended Nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt quia primus Sacerdos est hoc est Princeps est Sacerdotum Propheta Evangelista caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio Fidelium saith Saint Ambrose So that if in the description of the qualifications of a Bishop he intends to qualifie Presbyters also then it is principally intended for a Bishop and of the Presbyters only by way of subordination and comprehension This only by the way because this place is also abused to other issues To be sure it is but a vain dream that because Presbyter is not nam'd that therefore it is all one with a Bishop when as it may be comprehended under Bishop as a part in the whole or the inferiour within the superiour the office of a Bishop having in it the office of a Presbyter and something more or else it may be as well intended in the word Deacons and rather than the word Bishop 1. Because Bishop is spoken of in the singular number Deacons in the Plural and so liker to comprehend the multitude of Presbyters 2. Presbyters or else Bishops and therefore much more Presbyters are called by Saint Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers Deacons is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deacons by whose ministration ye believed and 3. By the same argument Deacons may be as well one with the Bishop too for in the Epistle to Titus Saint Paul describes the office of a Bishop and sayes not a word more either of Presbyter or Deacons office and why I pray may not the office of Presbyters in the Epistle to Timothy be omitted as well as Presbyters and Deacons too in that to Titus or else why may not Deacons be confounded and be all one with Bishop as well as Presbyter It will it must be so if this argument were any thing else but an aery and impertinent nothing After all this yet it cannot be shown in Scripture that any one single and meer Presbyter is called a Bishop but may be often found that a Bishop nay an Apostle is called a Presbyter as in the instances above and therefore since this communication of Names is only in descension by reason of the involution or comprehension of Presbyter within Episcopus but never in ascension that is an Apostle or a Bishop is often called Presbyter and Deacon and Prophet and Pastor and Doctor but never retrò that a meer Deacon or a meer Presbyter should be called either Bishop or Apostle it can never be brought either to depress the order of Bishops below their throne or erect meer Presbyters above their Stalls in the Quire For we may as well confound Apostle and Deacon and with clearer probability than Episcopus and Presbyter For Apostles and Bishops are in Scripture often called Deacons I gave one Instance of this before but there are very many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was said of Saint Matthias when he succeeded Judas in the Apostolate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Saint Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus Saint Paul is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Deacon of the New Testament and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said of the first founders of the Corinthian Church Deacons by whom ye believed Paul and Apollos were the men It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And a Bishop was called a Deacon wherefore writing to Timothy he saith to him being a Bishop Fulfil thy Deaconship * Add to this that there is no word or designation of any Clerical office but is given to Bishops and Apostles The Apostles are called Prophets Acts 13. The Prophets at Antioch were Lucius and Manaën and Paul and Barnabas and then they are called Pastors too and indeed hoc ipso that they are Bishops they are Pastors â—piritus S. posuit vos Episcopos Pascere Ecclesiam Dei Whereupon the Greek Scholiast expounds the word Pastor to signifie Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ever since that Saint Peter set us a copy in the compellation of the Prototype calling him the Great Shepherd and Bishop of our souls it hath obtained in all antiquity that Pastors and Bishops are coincident and we shall very hardly meet with an instance to the contrary * If Bishops be Pastors then they are Doctors also for these are conjunct when other offices which may in person be united yet in themselves are made disparate For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If Pastors then also Doctors and Teachers And this is observed by S. Austin Pastors and Doctors whom you would have me to distinguish I think are one and the same For Paul doth not say some Pastors some Doctors but to Pastors he joyneth Doctors that Pastors might understand it belongeth to their office to teach The same also is affirmed by Sedulius upon this place Thus it was in Scripture But after the Churches were settled and Bishops fixt upon their several Sees then the Names also were made distinct only those Names which did design temporary Offices did expire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith S. Chrysostom Thus far the names were common viz. in the sence above explicated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But immediately the names were made proper and distinct and to every Order it s own Name is left of a Bishop to a Bishop of a Presbyter to a Presbyter * This could not be supposed at first for when they were to borrow words from the titles of secular honour or offices and to transplant them to an artificial and imposed sence Vse which is the Master of language must rule us in this affair and Vse is not contracted but in some process and descent of time * For at first Christendom it self wanted a name and the Disciples of the Glorious Nazarene were
titles of honour be either unfit in themselves to be given to Bishops or what the guise of Christendome hath been in her spiritual heraldry 1. S. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna gives them this command Honora Episcopum ut Principem Sacerdotum imaginem Dei referentem Honour the Bishop as the image of God as the Prince of Priests Now since honour and excellency are terms of mutual relation and all excellency that is in men and things is but a ray of divine excellency so far as they participate of God so far they are honourable Since then the Bishop carries the impress of God upon his forehead and bears Gods image certainly this participation of such perfection makes him very honourable And since honor est in honorante it is not enough that the Bishop is honourable in himself but it tells us our duty we must honour him we must do him honour and of all the honours in the world that of words is the cheapest and the least S. Paul speaking of the honour due to the Prelates of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let them be accounted worthy of double honour And one of the honours that he there means is a costly one an honour of Maintenance the other must certainly be an honour of estimate and that 's cheapest The Council of Sardis speaking of the several steps and capacities of promotion to the height of Episcopacy uses this expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that shall be found worthy of so Divine a Priesthood let him be advanced to the highest honour Ego procidens ad pedes ejus rogabam excusans me declinans honorem cathedrae potestatem saith S. Clement when S. Peter would have advanced him to the Honour and power of the Bishops chair But in the third epistle speaking of the dignity of Aaron the High-Priest and then by analogy of the Bishop who although he be a Minister in the Order of Melchisedech yet he hath also the Honour of Aaron Omnis enim Pontisex sacro crismate perunctus in civitate constitutus in Scripturis sacris conditus charus preciosus hominibus oppidò esse debet Every High-Priest ordained in the City viz. a Bishop ought forthwith to be dear and precious in the eyes of men Quem quasi Christi locum tenentem honorare omnes debent eique servire obedientes ad salutem suam fideliter existere scientes quòd sive honor sive injuria quae ei defertur in Christum redundat à Christo in Deum The Bishop is Christs Vicegerent and therefore he is to be obeyed knowing that whether it be honour or injury that is done to the Bishop it is done to Christ and so to God * And indeed what is the saying of our blessed Saviour himself He that despiseth you despiseth me If Bishops be Gods Ministers and in higher order than the rest then although all discountenance and disgrace done to the Clergy reflect upon Christ yet what is done to the Bishop is far more and then there is the same reason of the honour And if so then the Question will prove but an odd one even this Whether Christ be to be honoured or no or depressed to the common estimate of Vulgar people for if the Bishops be then he is This is the condition of the Question 2. Consider we that all Religions and particularly all Christianity did give Titles of honour to their High-Priests and Bishops respectively * I shall not need to instance in the great honour of the Priestly tribe among the Jews and how highly honourable Aaron was in proportion Prophets were called Lords in holy Scripture Art not thou my Lord Elijah said Obadiah to the Prophet Knowest thou not that God will take thy Lord from thy head this day said the children in the Prophets Schools So it was then And in the new Testament we find a Prophet Honoured every where but in his own Country And to the Apostles and Presidents of Churches greater titles of honour given than was ever given to man by secular complacence and insinuation Angels and Governours and Fathers of our Faith and Stars Lights of the World the Crown of the Church Apostles of Jesus Christ nay Gods viz. to whom the Word of God came and of the compellation of Apostles particularly Saint Hierom saith that when Saint Paul called himself the Apostle of Jesus Christ it was as Magnifically spoken as if he had said Praefectus praetorio Augusts Caesaris Magister exercitus Tiberii Imperatoris And yet Bishops are Apostles and so called in Scripture I have proved that already Indeed our blessed Saviour in the case of the two sons of Zebedee forbad them to expect by vertue of their Apostolate any Princely titles in order to a Kingdom and an earthly Principality For that was it which the ambitious woman sought for her sons viz. fair honour and dignity in an earthly Kingdom for such a Kingdom they expected with their Messias To this their expectation our Saviours answer is a direct antithesis And that made the Apostles to be angry at the two Petitioners as if they had meant to supplant the rest and get the best preferment from them to wit in a temporal Kingdom No saith our blessed Saviour ye are all deceived The Kings of the Nations indeed do exercise authority and are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors so the word signifies Gracious Lords so we read it But it shall not be so with you What shall not be so with them shall not they exercise authority Who then is that faithful and wise Steward whom his Lord made Ruler over his Houshould Surely the Apostles or no body Had Christ authority Most certainly Then so had the Apostles for Christ gave them his with a sicut misit me pater c. Well! the Apostles might and we know they did exercise authority What then shall not be so with them Shall not they be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indeed if Saint Mark had taken that title upon him in Alexandria the Ptolomies whose Honorary appellative that was would have questioned him highly for it But if we go to the sence of the word the Apostles might be Benefactors and therefore might be called so But what then Might they not be called Gratious Lords The word would have done no hurt if it had not been an Ensign of a secular Principality For as for the word Lord I know no more prohibition for that than for being called Rabbi or Master or Doctor or Father What shall we think now May we not be called Doctors God hath constituted in his Church Pastors and Doctors saith Saint Paul Therefore we may be called so But what of the other the prohibition runs alike for all as is evident in the several places of the Gospels and may no man be called Master or Father Let an answer be thought on for these and the same will serve
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
they do prepare what to speak to the people it were also very fit they prepar'd their prayers and considered before-hand of the fitness of the offertory they present to God Sect. 32. LASTLY Did not the Pen-men of the Scripture write the Epistles and Gospels respectively all by the Spirit Most certainly holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost saith Saint Peter And certainly they were moved by a more immediate motion and a motion nearer to an Enthusiasm than now adays in the gift and spirit of Prayer And yet in the midst of those great assistances and motions they did use study art industry and humane abilities This is more than probable in the different stiles of the several Books some being of admirable art others lower and plain The words were their own at least sometimes not the Holy Ghosts And if Origen Saint Hierome and especially the Greek Fathers Scholiasts and Grammarians were not deceived by false Copies but that they truly did observe sometimes to be impropriety of an expression in the language sometimes not true Greek who will think those errors or imperfections in Grammar were in respect of the words I say precisely immediate inspirations and dictates of the Holy Ghost and not rather their own productions of industry and humanity But clearly some of their words were the words of Aratus some of Epimenides some of Menander some of S. Paul This speak I not the Lord. Some were the words of Moses even all that part of the Levitical Law which concerned divorces and concerning which our blessed Saviour affirms that Moses permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts but from the beginning it was not so and divers others of the same nature collected and observed to this purpose by Origen S. Basil S. Ambrose and particularly that promise which S. Paul made of calling upon the Corinthians as he passed into Macedonia which certainly in all reason is to be presumed to have been spoken humanitùs and not by immediate inspiration and infusion because Saint Paul was so hindred that he could not be as good as his word and yet the Holy Ghost could have foreseen it and might better have excused it if Saint Paul had laid it upon his score but he did not and it is reasonable enough to believe there was no cause he should and yet because the Holy Ghost renewed their memory improved their understanding supplied to some their want of humane learning and so assisted them that they should not commit an error in fact or opinion neither in the narrative nor dogmatical parts therefore they writ by the Spirit Since that we cannot pretend upon any grounds of probability to an inspiration so immediate as theirs and yet their assistances which they had from the Spirit did not exclude humane arts and industry but that the ablest Scholar did write the best much rather is this true in the gifts and assistances we receive and particularly in the gift of prayer it is not an ex tempore and an inspired faculty but the faculties of nature and the abilities of art and industry are improv'd and ennobled by the supervening assistances of the Spirit And if these who pray ex tempore say that the assistance they receive from the Spirit is the inspiration of words and powers without the operations of art and natural abilities humane industry then besides that it is more than the Pen-men of Scripture sometime had because they needed no extraordinary assistances to what they could of themselves do upon the stock of other abilities besides this I say it must follow that such Prayers so inspired if they were committed to writing would prove as good Canonical Scripture as any is in Saint Paul's Epistles the impudence of which pretension is sufficient to prove the extreme vanity of the challenge Sect. 33. THE summe is this Whatsoever this gift is or this spirit of prayer it is to be acquired by humane industry by learning of the Scriptures by reading by conference and by whatsoever else faculties are improved and habits enlarged Gods Spirit hath done his work sufficiently this way and he loves not either in nature or grace which are his two great sanctions to multiply miracles when there is no need Sect. 34. AND now let us take a man that pretends he hath the gift of Prayer and loves to pray ex tempore I suppose his thoughts go a little before his tongue I demand then Whether cannot this man when it is once come into his head hold his tongue and write down what he hath conceived If his first conceptions were of God and God's Spirit then they are so still even when they are written Or is the Spirit departed from him upon the sight of a Pen and Inkhorn It did use to be otherwise among the old and new Prophets whether they were Prophets of prediction or of ordinary ministery But if his conception may be written and being written is still a production of the Spirit then it follows that set forms of prayer deliberate and described may as well be a praying with the Spirit as sudden forms and ex tempore out-lets Sect. 35. NOW the case being thus put I would fain know what the difference is between deliberate and ex tempore Prayers save only that in these there is less consideration and prudence for that the other are at least as much as these the productions of the Spirit is evident in the very case put in this Argument and whether to consider and to weigh them be any disadvantage to our devotions I leave it to all wise men to determine So that in effect since after the pretended assistance of the Spirit in our prayers we may write them down consider them try the spirits and ponder the matter the reason and the religion of the address let the world judge whether this sudden utterance and ex tempore forms be any thing else but a direct resolution not to consider beforehand what we speak Sic itaque habe ut istam vim dicendi rapidam aptiorem esse circulanti judices quà m agenti rem magnam seriam docentique They are the words of Seneca and express what naturally flows from the premises The pretence of the Spirit and the gift of prayer is not sufficient to justifie the dishonour they do to Religion in serving it in the lowest and most indeliberate manner nor quit such men from unreasonableness and folly who will dare to speak to God in the presence of the people and in their behalf without deliberation or learning or study Nothing is a greater disreputation to the prudence of a Discourse than to say it was a thing made up in haste that is without due considering Sect. 36. BUT here I consider and I wish they whom it concerns most would do so too that to pretend the Spirit in so unreasonable a manner to so ill purposes and without reason or promise or
men had not only the first fruits but the elder Brothers share a double portion of the Spirit because they were not only to serve their own needs to which a single and an ordinary portion would have been then as now abundantly sufficient but also to serve the necessity of the succession and to instruct the Church for ever after Sect. 40. BUT then that this assistance was an ability to pray ex tempore I find it no where affirmed by sufficient authentick Testimony and if they could have done it it is very likely they would have been wary and restrained in the publick use of it I doubt not but there might then be some sudden necessities of the Church for which the Church being in her infancy had not as yet provided any publick forms concerning which cases I may say as Quintilian of an Oratour in the great and sudden needs of the Commonwealth Quarum si qua non dico cuicunque innocentium civium sed amicorum ac propinquorum alicui evenerit stabÃtne mutus salutarem parentibus vocem statim si non succurratur perituris moras secessum silentium quaeret dum illa verba fabricentur memoriae insidant vox ac latus praeparetur I do not think that they were oratores imparati ad casus but that an ability of praying on a sudden was indulged to them by a special aid of the Spirit to contest against sudden dangers and the violence of new accidents to which also possibly a new inspiration was but for a very little while necessary even till they understood the mysteries of Christianity and the revelations of the Spirit by proportion and analogy to which they were sufficiently instructed to make their sudden prayers when sudden occasions did require Sect. 41. THIS I speak by way of concession and probability For no man can prove thus much as I am willing relying upon the reasonableness of the Conjecture to suppose but that praying with the Spirit in this place is praying without study art or deliberation is not so much as intimated Sect. 42. FOR first It is here implyed that they did prepare some of those devotions to which they were helped by the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when you come together each of you peradventure hath a Psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not every one makes but when you meet every one hath viz. already which supposes they had it prepared against the meeting For the Spirit could help as well at home in their meditation as in the publick upon a sudden and though it is certain the Holy Spirit loves to bless the publick meetings the communion of Saints with special benedictions yet I suppose my Adversaries are not willing to acknowledge any thing that should do much reputation to the Church and the publick authoriz'd conventions at least not to confine the Spirit to such holy and blessed meetings They will I suppose rather grant the words do probably intimate they came prepared with a Hymn and therefore there is nothing in the nature of the thing but that so also might their other forms of Prayer the assistance of the Spirit which is the thing in Question hinders not but that they also might have made them by premeditation Sect. 43. SECONDLY In this place praying with the Spirit signifies no other extraordinary assistance but that the Spirit help'd them to speak their prayer in an unknown Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I pray in a tongue my spirit prayeth but my understanding is without fruit what then I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also Plainly here praying in the spirit which is opposed to praying in understanding is praying in an unknown tongue where by the way observe that praying with the spirit even in the sence of Scripture is not always most to edification of the people Not alwayes with understanding And when these two are separated St. Paul prefers five words with understanding before ten thousand in the spirit For this praying with the spirit was indeed then a gift extraordinary and miraculous like as prophesying with the spirit and expired with it But while it did last it was the lowest of gifts inter dona linguarum it was but a gift of the tongue and not to the benefit of the Church directly or immediately Sect. 44. THIS also observe in passing by If Saint Paul did so undervalue the praying with the Spirit that he preferred edifying the Church a thousand degrees beyond it I suppose he would have been of the same mind if the Question had been between praying with the Spirit and obeying our Superiours as he was when it was between praying with the Spirit and edification of the Church because if I be not mistaken it is matter of great concernment towards the edification of the Church to obey our Superiours not to innovate in publick forms of worship especially with the scandal and offence of very wise and learned men and to the disgrace of the dead Martyrs who sealed our Liturgie with their blood Sect. 45. BUT to return In this place praying with the Spirit beside the assistance given by the Holy Ghost to speak in a strange tongue is no more than my spirit praying that is it implies my co-operation with the assistance of the Spirit of God insomuch that the whole action may truly be denominated mine and is called of the Spirit only by reason of that collateral assistance For so Saint Paul joyns them as terms identical and expressive one of anothers meaning as you may please to read ver 14. and 15. 1 Cor. 14. I will pray with the spirit and my spirit truly prayeth It is the act of our inner man praying holy and spiritual prayers But then indeed at that time there was something extraordinary adjoyned for it was in an unknown Tongue the practice of which Saint Paul there dislikes This also will be to none of their purposes For whether it were ex tempore or by premeditation is not here expressed or if it had yet that assistance extraordinary in prayer if there was any beside the gift of Tongues which is not here or any where else expressed is no more transmitted to us than the speaking Tongues in the Spirit or prophesying ex tempore and by the Spirit Sect. 46. BUT I would add also one experiment which Saint Paul also there adds by way of instance If praying with the Spirit in this place be praying ex tempore then so is singing too For they are expressed in the same place in the same manner to the same end and I know no reason why there should be differing sences put upon them to serve purposes And now let us have some Church Musick too though the Organs be pull'd down and let any the best Psalmist of them all compose a Hymn in Metrical form as Antipater Sidonius in Quintilian and Licinius Archias in Cicero could
may please to see one observ'd to have been made in Heaven for a set form of Worship and address to God was recorded by St. John and sung in Heaven and it was composed out of the Songs of Moses Exod. 15. of David Psal. 145 and of Jeremy Chap. 10.6 7. which certainly is a very good precedent for us to imitate although but revealed by St. John by way of vision and extasie that we may see if we would speak with the tongue of Men and Angels we could not praise God in better Forms than what are recorded in holy Scripture Sect. 90. BUT besides the metrical part the Apostle hath described other parts of Liturgy in Scripture whose composition though it be in determined forms of words yet not so bound up with numbers as Hymns and these Saint Paul calls supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks which are several manners of address distinguished by their subject matter by their form and manner of address As appears plainly by intercessions and giving of thanks the other are also by all men distinguished though in the particular assignment they differ but the distinction of the Words implies the distinction of Offices which together with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lectionarium of the Church the Books of the Apostles and Prophets spoken of by Justin Martyr and said to be used in the Christian congregations are the constituent parts of Liturgy and the exposition of the words we best learn from the practice of the Church who in all Ages of whose publick offices any record is left to us took their pattern from these places of Scripture the one for Prose the other for Verse and if we take Liturgy into its several parts or members we cannot want something to appply to every one of the words of St. Paul in these present allegations Sect. 91. FOR the offices of prose we find but small mention of them in the very first time save only in general terms and that such there were and that St. James St. Mark St. Peter and others of the Apostles and Apostolical men made Liturgies and if these which we have at this day were not theirs yet they make probation that these Apostles left others or else they were impudent people that prefixed their names so early and the Churches were very incurious to swallow such a bole if no pretension could have been reasonably made for their justification But concerning Church Hymns we have clearer testimony in particular both because they were many of them and because they were dispersed more soon got by heart passed also among the people and were pious arts of the Spirit whereby holy things were instilled into their souls by the help of fancy and a more easie memory The first civilizing of people used to be by Poetry and their Divinity was conveyed by Songs and Verses and the Apostle exhorted the Christians to exhort one another in Psalms and Hymns for he knew the excellent advantages were likely to accrue to religion by such an insinuation of the mysteries Thus St. Hilary and St. Ambrose composed Hymns for the use of the Church and St. Austin made a Hymn against the Schism of Donatus which Hymns when they were publickly allowed of were used in publick Offices not till then For Paulus Samosatenus had brought Women into the Church to sing vain and trifling songs and some Bishops took to themselves too great and incurious a license and brought Hymns into the Church whose gravity and piety was not very remarkable upon occasion of which the Fathers of the Councel of Laodicea ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 No Psalms of private composition must be brought into the Church so Gentian Harvet renders it Isidore Translates it Psalmos ab idiotis compositos Psalms made by common persons Psalms usually sung abroad so Dionysius Exiguus calls them Psalmos Plebeios but I suppose by the following words is meant That none but Scripture Psalms shall be read there for so the Canon addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing to be read in the Church but Books of the Old and New Testament And this interpretation agrees well enough with the occasion of the Canon which I now mentioned Sect. 92. THIS only by the way the reddition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Isidore to be Psalms made by common persons whom the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignorant or unlearned is agreeable enough with that of Saint Paul who intimates that prayers and forms of Liturgies are to be composed for them not by them they were never thought of to be persons competent to make Forms of Prayers themselves For S. Paul speaks of such an one as of a person coming into the Church to hear the Prophets pray and sing and interpret and prophesie and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he is reproved of all and judged of all and therefore the most unfit person in the world to bring any thing that requires great ability and great authority to obtrude it upon the Church his Rulers and his Judges And this was not unhandsomely intimated by the word sometimes used by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greek Church calling the publick Liturgie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Prayers made for the use of the Idiotae or private persons as the word is contradistinguished from the Rulers of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies contum and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to live in the condition of a private person and in the vulgar Greek sayes Arcudius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie a little man of a low stature from which two significations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may well enough design a short form of Prayer made for the use of private persons And this was reasonable and part of the Religion even of the Heathen as well as Christians the presidents of their Religion were to find prayers for the people and teach them forms of address to their Gods Castis cum pueris ignara puella mariti Disceret unde preces vatem ni Musa dedisset Poscit opem chorus praesentia numina sentit Coelestes implorat equas docta prece blandus Carmine dii superi placantur carmine Manes But this by the way Sect. 93. BUT because I am casually fallen upon mention of the Laodicean Council and that it was very ancient before the Nicene and of very great reputation both in the East and in the West it will not be a contemptible addition to the reputation of set forms of Liturgy that we find them so early in the Church reduced to a very regular and composed manner The XVth Canon suffers none to sing in the Church but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that sing by book and go up into the Pulpit they were the same persons and the manner of doing their office was their appellative which shews plainly that the known
restraint Certainly then this pretended restraint is no such formidable thing These men themselves do it by directing all of the matter and much of the manner and Christ himself did it by prescribing both the matter and the words too Sect. 123. SIXTHLY These restraints as they are called or determinations of the Spirit are made by the Spirit himself For I demand when any Assembly of Divines appoint the matter of prayers to all particular Ministers as this hath done is that appointment by the Spirit or no If no then for ought appears this directory not being made by Gods Spirit may be an enemy to it But if this appointment be by the Spirit then the determination and limitation of the Spirit is by the spirit himself and such indeed is every pious and prudent constitution of the Church in matters spiritual Such as was that of St. Paul to the Corinthians when he prescribed orders for publick Prophesying and Interpretation and speaking with Tongues The Spirit of some he so restrained that he bound them to hold their peace he permitted but two or three to speak at one meeting the rest were to keep silence though possibly six or seven might at that time have the spirit Sect. 124. SEVENTHLY Is it not a restraint of the spirit to sing a Psalm in Metre by appointment Clearly as much as appointing Forms of prayer or Eucharist And yet that we see done daily and no scruple made Is not this to be partial in judgment and inconsiderate of what we do Sect. 125. EIGHTHLY And now after all this strife what harm is there in restraining the spirit in the present sence What prohibition What law What reason or revelation is against it What inconvenience in the nature of the thing For can any man be so weak as to imagine a despite is done to the spirit of grace when the gifts given to his Church are used regularly and by order As if prudence were no gift of Gods spirit as if helps in Government and the ordering spiritual matters were none of those graces which Christ when he ascended up on high gave unto men But this whole matter is wholly a stranger to reason and never seen in Scripture Sect. 126. FOR Divinity never knew any other vitious restraining the spirit but either suppressing those holy incitements to vertue and good life which God's Spirit ministers to us externally or internally or else a forbidding by publick authority the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to speak such truths as God hath commanded and so taking away the liberty of prophesying The first is directly vitious in materia speciali The second is tyrannical and Antichristian And to it persecution of true Religion is to be reduced But as for this pretended limiting or restraining the Spirit viz. by appointing a regular Form of prayer it is so very a Chimaera that it hath no footing or foundation upon any ground where a wise man may build his confidence Sect. 127. NINTHLY But lastly how if the Spirit must be restrained and that by precept Apostolical That calls us to a new account But if it be not true what means Saint Paul by saying The spirits of the Prophets must be subject to the Prophets What greater restraint than subjection If subjected then they must be ruled if ruled then limited prescribed unto and as much under restraint as the spirits of the superiour Prophets shall judge convenient I suppose by this time this Objection will trouble us no more But perhaps another will Sect. 128. FOR Why are not the Ministers to be left as well to their liberty in making their Prayers as their Sermons I answer the Church may if she will but whether she doth well or no let her consider This I am sure there is not the same reason and I fear the experience the world hath already had of it will make demonstration enough of the inconvenience But however the differences are many Sect. 129. FIRST Our Prayers offered up by the Minister are in behalf and in the name of the People and therefore great reason they should know beforehand what is to be presented that if they like not the message they may refuse to communicate especially since people are so divided in their opinions in their hopes and in their faiths it being a duty to refuse communion with those prayers which they think to have in them the matter of sin or doubting Which reason on the other part ceases For the Minister being to speak from God to the people if he speaks what he ought not God can right himself however is not a partner of the sin as in the other case the people possibly may be Sect. 130. SECONDLY It is more fit a liberty be left in Preaching than Praying because the address of our discourses and exhortations are to be made according to the understanding and capacity of the audience their prejudices are to be removed all advantages to be taken and they are to be surprized that way they lie most open But being crafty I caught you saith St. Paul to the Corinthians And discourses and arguments ad hominem upon their particular principles and practises may more move them than the most polite and accurate that do not comply and wind about their fancies and affections St. Paul from the absurd practise of being baptized for the dead made an excellent Argument to convince the Corinthians of the Resurrection But this reason also ceases in our prayers For God understandeth what we say sure enough he hath no prejudices to be removed no infirmities to be wrought upon and a fine figure of Rhetorick a pleasant cadence and a curious expression move not him at all No other twinings and compliances stir him but charity and humility and zeal and importunity which all are things internal and spiritual It was observed by Pliny Deos non tam accuratis adorantium precibus quà m innocentiâ sanctitate laetari gratiorémque existimari qui delubris eorum puram castámque mentem quà m qui meditatum carmen intulerit And therefore of necessity there is to be great variety of discourses to the people and permissions accordingly but not so to God with whom a Deus miserere prevails as soon as the great Office of forty hours not long since invented in the Church of Rome or any other prayers spun out to a length beyond the extension of the office of a Pharisee Sect. 131. THIRDLY I fear it cannot stand with our reverence to God to permit to every spirit a liberty of publick address to him in behalf of the people Indeed he that is not fit to pray is not always fit to preach but it is more safe to be bold with the people than with God if the persons be not so fit In that there may be indiscretion but there may be impiety and irreligion in this The people may better excuse and pardon an indiscretion or a rudeness if any such should happen than
Church of Ephesus so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a busie man in anothers Diocess This and such Impostors as this the Angel of the Church of Ephesus did try and discover and convict and in it he was assisted by Saint John himself as is intimated in Saint John's third Epistle written to his Gaius v. 9. I wrote unto the Church to wit of Asia but Diotrephes who loveth to have the preheminence among them receiveth us not Clearly this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would have been a Bishop It was a matter of ambition a quarrel for superintendency and preheminence that troubled him and this also appears further in that he exercised jurisdiction and excommunication where he had nothing to do v. 10. He forbids them that would receive the Brethren and casteth them out of the Church So that here it is clear this false Apostolate was his ambitious seeking of Episcopal preheminence and jurisdiction without lawful ordination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that was his design He loved to be the first in the Church esse Apostolum esse Episcopum to be an Apostle or a Bishop SECT VI. Which Christ himself hath made distinct from Presbyters BUT this Office of the ordinary Apostleship or Episcopacy derives its Fountain from a Rock Christ's own distinguishing the Apostolate from the function of Presbyters For when our blessed Saviour had gathered many Disciples who believed him at his first preaching Vocavit Discipulos suos elegit duodecim ex ipsis quos Apostolos nominavit saith Saint Luke He called his Disciples and out of them chose twelve and called them Apostles That was the first election Post haec autem designavit Dominus alios septuaginta duos That was his second election the first were called Apostles the second were not and yet he sent them by two and two We hear but of one Commission granted them which when they had performed and returned joyful at their power over Devils we hear no more of them in the Gospel but that their Names were written in Heaven We are likely therefore to hear of them after the passion if they can but hold their own And so we do For after the Passion the Apostles gathered them together and joyn'd them in Clerical commission by vertue of Christ's first ordination of them for a new ordination we find none in holy Scripture recorded before we find them doing Clerical offices Ananias we read baptizing of Saul Philip the Evangelist we find preaching in Samaria and baptizing his Converts Others also we find Presbyters at Jerusalem especially at the first Councel for there was Judas sirnamed Justus and Silas and Saint Mark and John a Presbyter not an Apostle as Eusebius reports him and Simeon Cleophas who tarried there till he was made Bishop of Jerusalem these and divers others are reckoned to be of the number of the 72. by Eusebius and Dorotheus Here are plainly two Offices of Ecclesiastical Ministeries Apostles and Presbyters so the Scripture calls them These were distinct and not temporary but succeeded to and if so then here is clearly a Divine institution of two Orders and yet Deacons neither of them Here let us fix a while SECT VII Giving to Apostles a power to do some Offices perpetually necessary which to others he gave not THEN It is clear in Scripture that the Apostles did some acts of Ministery which were necessary to be done for ever in the Church and therefore to be committed to their Successors which acts the seventy Disciples or Presbyters could not do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Saint Denis of the Highest Order of the Hierarchy The Law of God hath reserved the greater and Diviner Offices to the Highest Order First The Apostles imposed hands in Ordinations which the 72. did not the case is known Acts 6. The Apostles called the Disciples willing them to chuse seven men whom they might constitute in the ministration and over-sight of the poor They did so and set them before the twelve Apostles so they are specified and numbred vers 2. cum 6. and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them They not the Disciples not the 72. who were there actually present and seven of them were then ordained to this Ministery for they were not now ordained to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Councel of Constantinople calls them and that these were the number of the 72. Disciples Epiphanius bears witness He sent other 72. to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which Number were those seven ordained and set over the Widows And the same is intimated by Saint Chrysostom if I understand him right 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What dignity had these seven here ordained Of Deacons No for this dispensation is made by Priests not Deacons and Theophylact more clearly repeating the words of Saint Chrysostom pro more suo adds this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The name and dignity of these seven was no less but even the dignity of Presbyters only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people Presbyters they were say S. Chrysostom and Theophylact of the number of the 72. saith Epiphanius But however it is clear that the 72. were present for the whole multitude of the Disciples was as yet there resident they were not yet sent abroad they were not scattered with persecution till the Martyrdom of Saint Stephen but the twelve called the whole multitude of the Disciples to them about this affair vers 2. But yet themselves only did ordain them Secondly An instance parallel to this is in the imposition of hands upon Saint Paul and Barnabas in the first ordination that was held at Antioch Now there were in the Church that were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers as Barnabas and Simeon and Lucius and Manaen and Saul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 while these men were ministring the Holy Ghost said to them separate me Barnabas and Saul They did so they fasted they prayed they laid their hands on them and sent them away So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost departed into Seleucia This is the story now let us make our best on 't Here then was the ordination and imposition of hands compleat and that was said to be done by the Holy Ghost which was done by the Prophets of Antioch For they sent them away and yet the next words are so they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost So that here was the thing done and that by the Prophets alone and that by the command of the Holy Ghost and said to be his act Well! but what were these Prophets They were Prophets in the Church of Antioch not such as Agabus and the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist Prophets of prediction extraordinary but Prophets of ordinary office and ministration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prophets and Teachers and Ministers More than ordinary
in those places where the Bishops are exauctorated and no where else that I know but amongst those men that have complying designs the word Pastor is given to Parish Priests against the manner and usage of Ancient Christendom and though Priests may be called Pastors in a limited subordinate sence and by way of participation just as they may be called Angels when the Bishop is the Angel and so Pastors when the Bishop is the Pastor and so they are called Pastores ovium in Saint Cyprian but never are they called Pastores simply or Pastores Ecclesiae for above 600. years in the Church and I think 800. more And therefore it was good counsel which S. Paul gave to avoid vocum Novitates because there is never any affectation of new words contrary to the Ancient voice of Christendom but there is some design in the thing too to make an innovation and of this we have had long warning in the new use of the word Pastor SECT XXVI And Doctor IF Bishops were the Pastors then Doctors also it was the observation which S. Augustin made out of Ephes. 4. as I quoted him even now For God hath given some Apostles some Prophets some Pastors and Doctors So the Church hath learn'd to speak In the Greeks Councel of Carthage it was decreed that places which never had a Bishop of their own should not now have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Doctor of their own that is a Bishop but still be subject to the Bishop of the Diocess to whom formerly they gave obedience and the title of the Chapter is that the parts of the Diocess without the Bishops consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not have another Bishop He who in the Title is called Bishop in the Chapter is called the Doctor And thus also Epiphanius speaking of Bishops calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fathers and Doctors Gratia enim Ecclesiae laus Doctoris est saith Saint Ambrose speaking of the eminence of the Bishop over the Presbyters and subordinate Clergy The same also is to be seen in Saint Austin Sedulius and divers others I deny not but it is in this appellative as in divers of the rest that the Presbyters may in subordination be also called Doctors for every Presbyter must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apt to teach but yet this is expressed as a requisite in the particular office of a Bishop and no where expresly of a Presbyter that I can find in Scripture but yet because in all Churches it was by licence of the Bishop that Presbyters did Preach if at all and in some Churches the Bishop only did it particularly of Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Sozomen therefore it was that the Presbyter in the language of the Church was not but the Bishop was often called Doctor of the Church SECT XXVII And Pontifex THE next word which the Primitive Church did use as proper to express the offices and eminence of Bishops is Pontifex and Pontificatus for Episcopacy Sed à Domino edocti consequentiam rerum Episcopis Pontificatus munera assignavimus said the Apostles as 1. Saint Clement reports Pontificale 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Saint John the Apostle wore in his Forehead as an Ensign of his Apostleship a gold plate or medal when he was in Pontificalibus in his Pontifical or Apostolical habit saith Eusebius 2. De dispensationibus Ecclesiarum Antiqua sanctio tenuit definitio SS Patrum in Nicaeâ convenientium .... si Pontifices voluerint ut cum eis vicini propter utilitatem celebrent ordinationes Said the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople 3. Quâ tempestate in urbe Româ Clemens quoque tertius post Paulum Petrum Pontificatum tenebat saith 4. Eusebius according to the translation of Ruffinus Apud Antiochiani vero Theophilus per idem tempus sextus ab Apostolis Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenebat saith the same Eusebius 5. And there is a famous story of Alexander Bishop of Cappadocia that when Narcissus Bishop of Jerusalem was invalid and unfit for government by reason of his extream age he was designed by a particular Revelation and a voice from Heaven Suscipite Episcopum qui vobis à Deo destinatus est Receive your Bishop whom God hath appointed for you but it was when Narcissus jam senio sessus Pontificatus Ministerio sufficere non possit saith the story 6. Eulogius the confessor discoursing with the Prefect that wished him to comply with the Emperour asked him Numquid ille unà cum Imperio etiam Pontificatum est consequutus He hath an Empire but hath he also a Bishoprick Pontificatus is the word But 7. S. Dionysius is very exact in the distinction of clerical offices and particularly gives this account of the present Est igitur Pontificatus ordo qui praeditus vi perficiente munera hierarchiae quae perficiunt c. And a little after Sacerdotum autem ordo subjectus Pontificum ordini c. To which agrees 8. S. Isidore in his etymologies Ideo autem Presbyteri Sacerdotes vocantur quia sacrum dant sicut Episcopi qui licet Sacerdotes sint tamen Pontificatus apicem non habent quia nec Chrismate frontem signant nec Paracletum spiritum dant quod solis deberi Episcopis lectio actuum Apostolicorum demonstrat and in the same chapter Pontifex Princeps Sacerdotum est One word more there is often used in antiquity for Bishops and that 's Sacerdos Sacerdotum autem bipartitus est ordo say S. Clement and Anacletus for they are Majores and Minores The Majores Bishops the Minores Presbyters for so it is in the Apostolical Constitutions attributed to S. Clement Episcopis quidem assignavimus attribuimus quae ad Principatum Sacerdotii pertinent Presbyteris vero quae ad Sacerdotium And in S. Cyprian Presbyteri cum Episcopis Sacerdotali honore conjuncti But although in such distinction and subordination and in concretion a Presbyter is sometimes called Sacerdos yet in Antiquity Sacerdotium Ecclesiae does evermore signifie Episcopacy and Sacerdos Ecclesiae the Bishop Theotecnus Sacerdotium Ecclesiae tenens in Episcopatu saith Eusebius and summus Sacerdos the Bishop always Dandi baptismum jus habet summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus saith Tertullian and indeed Sacerdos alone is very seldome used in any respect but for the Bishop unless when there is some distinctive term and of higher report given to the Bishop at the same time Ecclesiae est plebs Sacerdoti adunata Grex pastori suo adhaerens saith S. Cyprian And that we may know by Sacerdos he means the Bishop his next words are Vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesiâ esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo And in the same Epistle qui ad Cyprianum Episcopum in carcere literas direxerunt Sacerdotem Dei agnoscentes contestantes * Eusebius reckoning some of the
dirimere sed Vnimini Episcopo subjecti Deo per illum in Christo saith S. Ignatius Let nothing divide you but be united to your Bishop being subject to God in Christ through your Bishop And it is his conge to the people of Smyrna to whom he writ in his epistle to Polycarpus opto vos semper valere in Deo nostro Jesu Christo in quo manete perunitatem Dei Episcopi Farewell in Christ Jesus in whom remain by the Vnity of God and of the Bishop Quantò vos beatiores judico qui dependetis ab illo Episcopo ut Ecclesia à Domino Jesu Dominus à Patre suo ut omnia per Vnitatem consentiant Blessed people are ye that depend upon your Bishop as the Church on Christ and Christ on God that all things may consent in Vnity * Neque enim aliundè haereses obortae sunt aut nata sunt schismata quà m inde quòd Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesiâ ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur Hence come Schisms hence spring Heresies that the Bishop is not obeyed and admitted alone to be the high Priest alone to be the Judge The same S. Cyprian repeats again and by it we may see his meaning clearer Qui vos audit me audit c. Inde enim haereses schismata obortae sunt oriuntur dum Episcopus qui unus est Ecclesiae praeest superbâ quorundam praesumptione contemnitur homo dignatione Dei honoratus indignus hominibus judicatur The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their Bishops is the cause of all heresie and Schism And therefore it was so strictly forbidden by the Ancient Canons that any Man should have any meetings or erect an Altar out of the communion of his Bishop that if any man proved delinquent in this particular he was punished with the highest censures as appears in the 32. Canon of the Apostles in the 6th Canon of the Council of Gangra the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch and the great Council of Chalcedon all which I have before cited The sum is this The Bishop is the band and ligature of the Churches Unity and separation from the Bishop is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Theodorets expression is a Symbol of faction and he that separates is a Schismatick But how if the Bishop himself be a heretick or schismatick May we not then separate Yes if he be judged so by a Synod of Bishops but then he is sure to be deposed too and then in these cases no separation from a Bishop For till he be declared so his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his Diocess lest they by so doing become their Judges Judge and when he is declared so no need of withdrawing from obedience to the Bishop for the heretick or schismatick must be no longer Bishop * But let the case be what it will be no separation from a Bishop ut sic can be lawful and yet if there were a thousand cases in which it were lawful to separate from a Bishop yet in no case is it lawful to separate from Episcopacy That is the quintessence and spirit of schism and a direct overthrow to Christianity and a confronting of a Divine institution SECT XLVII And Hereticks BUT is it not also heresie Aerius was condemned for heresie by the Catholick Church The heresie from whence the Aerians were denominated was sermo furiosus magis quà m humanae conditionis dicebat Quid est Episcopus ad Presbyterum nihil dissert hic ab illo A mad and unmanly heresie to say that a Bishop and a Priest are all one So Epiphanius Assumpsit autem Ecclesia in toto mundo assensus factus est antequam esset Aerius qui ab ipso appellantur Aeriani And the good Catholick Father is so angry at the heretick Aerius that he thinks his name was given him by Providence and he is called Aerius aeriis spiritibus pravitatis for he was possessed with an unclean spirit he could never else have been the inventer of such heretical pravity S. Austin also reckons him in the accursed roll of hereticks and adds at the conclusion of his Catalogue that he is no Catholick Christian that assents to any of the foregoing Doctrines amongst which this is one of the principal Philastrius does as much for him But against this it will be objected First That heresies in the Primitive Catalogues are of a large extent and every dissent from a publick opinion was esteemed heresie 2dly Aerius was called heretick for denying prayer for the dead And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a Bishop and a Presbyter as in that other for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius and Saint Austin Thirdly He was never condemned by any Council and how then can he be called heretick I answer that dissent from a publick or a received opinion was never called heresie unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of Catholick doctrine For the Fathers many of them did so as S. Austin from the Millenary opinion yet none ever reckoned them in the Catalogues of hereticks but such things only set them down there which were either directly opposite to Catholick belief though in minoribus articulis or to a holy life 2dly It is true that Epiphanius and S. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions and heretical But I cannot help it if they did let him and them agree it they are able to answer for themselves But yet they accused him also of Arianism and shall we therefore say that Arianism was no heresie because the Fathers called him heretick in one particular upon a wrong principal We may as well say this as deny the other 3dly He was not condemned by any Council No. For his heresie was ridiculous and a scorn to all wise men as Epiphanius observes and it made no long continuance neither had it any considerable party * But yet this is certain that Epiphanius and Philastrius and S. Austin called this opinion of Aerius a heresy and against the Catholick belief And themselves affirm that the Church did so and then it would be considered that it is but a sad imployment to revive old heresies and make them a piece of the New religion And yet after all this if I mistake not although Aerius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a Council yet certainly the one half of his error is condemn'd for heresie in one of the four General Councils viz. the first Council of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We call all them hereticks whom the Ancient Church hath condemn'd and whom we shall anathematize Will not Aerius come under one of these titles for a condemn'd heretick Then see forward 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is enough for Aerius and all
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
THUS I have by very many arguments taken from the words and circumstances and annexes of the Institution or Consecration proved that the sence of this mystery is mysterious and spiritual that Christs body is eaten only sacramentally by the body but really and effectively only by faith which is the mouth of the soul that the flesh profiteth nothing but the words which Christ spake are spirit and life And let it be considered Whether besides a pertinacious resolution that they will understand these words as they found in the letter not as they are intended in the spirit there be any thing or indeed can be in the nature of the thing or circumstances of it or usefulness or in the different forms of words or the Analogy of the other discourses of Christ that can give colour to their literal sence against which so much reason and Scripture and arguments from Antiquity do contest This only I observe that they bring no pretence of other Scriptures to warrant this interpretation but such which I have or shall wrest out of their hands and which to all mens first apprehensions and at the very first sight do make against them and which without curious notion and devices cannot pretend on their side as appears first in the tenth Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians Verses 16 17. 2. Out of which I have already proved that Christs body is not taken in the natural sence but in the spiritual But when Bellarmine had out of the same words forced for himself three arguments proving nothing to save any man the labour of answering them he adds at the end of them these words Sed tota difficultas est as corporaliter realiter propriè sumatur sanguis caro an solùm significativè spiritualiter Quod autem corporaliter propriè probari posset omnibus argumentis quibus suprà probavimus propriè esse intelligenda verba illa institutionis Hoc est corpus meum That is after his arguments out of the first Epistle to the Corinthians were ended all the difficulty of the question still remained and that he was fain to prove by Hoc est corpus meum and the proper arguments of that but brings nothing from the words of S. Paul in this Chapter But to make up this also he does corrodere scrape together some things extrinsecal to the words of this authority as 1. That the literal sence is to be presumed unless the contrary be proved which is very true but I have evidently proved the contrary concerning the words of Institution and for the words in this Chapter if the literal sence be preferred then the bread remains after Consecration because it is called bread 2. So the Primitive Saints expounded it which how true it is I shall consider in his own place 3. The Apostle calling the Gentiles from their sacrificed flesh proposes to them a more excellent banquet but it were not more excellent if it were only a figure of Christs body so Bellarmine which is a fit cover for such a dish for 1. We do not say that in the Sacrament we only receive the sign and figure of Christs body but all the real effects and benefits of it 2. If we had yet it is not very much better than blasphemy to say that the Apostles had not prevailed upon that account For if the very figure and sacrament of Christs body be better than sacrifices offered to Devils the Apostle had prevailed though this sentence were true that in the Sacrament we receive only the figure And thus I have for all that is said against it made it apparent that there is nothing in that place for their corporal presence 3. There is one thing more which out of Scripture they urge for the corporal presence viz. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords body and he shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Where they observe that they that eat unworthily do yet eat Christs body because how else could they be guilty of it and condemned for not discerning it 4. To this I answer many things 1. S. Paul does not say He that eateth and drinketh Christs body and blood unworthily c. but indefinitely He that eateth and drinketh c. yet it is probable he would have said so if it had been a proper form of speech because by so doing it would have layed a greater load upon them 2. Where S. Paul does not speak indefinitely he speaks most clearly against the Article in the Roman sence for he calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The cup of the Lord and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread and he that eats this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of Christ and now these comminatory phrases are quitted from their pretence but yet they have their proper consideration Therefore 3. Not discerning the Lords body is not separating it from profane and common usages not treating it with addresses proper to the mystery To which phrase Justin gives light in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we do not receive it as common bread and common drink but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. but nourishment made Eucharistical or blessed by the word of Prayer and so it is the body and blood of the Lord. 4. It is the body of the Lord in the same sence here as in the words of institution which I have evinced to be exegetical sacramental and spiritual and by despising the sacrament of it we become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. Reus erit corporis sanguinis Christi qui tanti mysterii sacramentum despexerit saith S. Hierome And it is in this as Severianus said concerning the statutes of Theodosius broken in despight by the Antiochians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you abuse the Kings Image the affront relates to your Prince 5. The unworthy receiver is guilty of the body and blood of Christ not naturally for that cannot now be and nothing is a greater probation of the spiritual sence of the words in this place than this which they would intice into their party For Christs body is glorified and not capable of natural injury but the evil communicant is guilty of the body and blood of Christ just as relapsing Christians are said by the same Apostles to crucifie the Lord of life again and put him to an open shame which I suppose they cannot do naturally or corporally One is as the other that is both are tropical or figurative 5. These are all that they pretend from Scripture and all these are nothing to their purpose but now besides what I have already said I shall bring arguments from other Scriptures which will not so easily be put off SECT IX Arguments from other Scriptures proving Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament to be only Spiritual not Natural 1. THE first is taken from those words of our
matter of Faith or a Doctrine of the Church for if it had these had been Hereticks accounted and not have remain'd in the Communion of the Church But although for the reasonableness of the thing we have thought fit to take notice of it yet we shall have no need to make use of it since not only in the prime and purest Antiquity we are indubitably more than Conquerours but even in the succeeding Ages we have the advantage both numero pondere mensurâ in number weight and measure We do easily acknowledge that to dispute these Questions from the sayings of the Fathers is not the readiest way to make an end of them but therefore we do wholly rely upon Scriptures as the foundation and final resort of all our perswasions and from thence can never be confuted but we also admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures and as good testimony of the Doctrine deliver'd from their fore-fathers down to them of what the Church esteem'd the way of Salvation and therefore if we find any Doctrine now taught which was not plac'd in their way of Salvation we reject it as being no part of the Christian faith and which ought not to be impos'd upon Consciences They were wise unto salvation and fully instructed to every good work and therefore the Faith which they profess'd and deriv'd from Scripture we profess also and in the same Faith we hope to be sav'd even as they But for the new Doctors we understand them not we know them not Our Faith is the same from the beginning and cannot become new But because we shall make it to appear that they do greatly innovate in all their points of controversie with us and shew nothing but shadows instead of substances and little images of things instead of solid arguments we shall take from them their armour in which they trusted and chuse this sword of Goliah to combat their errors for non est alter talis It is not easie to find a better than the Word of God expounded by the prime and best Antiquity The first thing therefore we are to advertise is that the Emissaries of the Roman Church endeavour to perswade the good People of our Dioceses from a Religion that is truly Primitive and Apostolick and divert them to Propositions of their own new and unheard-of in the first Ages of the Christian Church For the Religion of our Church is therefore certainly Primitive and Apostolick because it teaches us to believe the whole Scriptures of the Old and New Testament and nothing else as matter of Faith and therefore unless there can be new Scriptures we can have no new matters of belief no new Articles of faith Whatsoever we cannot prove from thence we disclaim it as not deriving from the Fountains of our Saviour We also do believe the Apostles Creed the Nicene with the additions of Constantinople and that which is commonly called the Symbol of Saint Athanasius and the four first General Councils are so intirely admitted by us that they together with the plain words of Scripture are made the rule and measure of judging Heresies amongst us and in pursuance of these it is commanded by our Church that the Clergy shall never teach any thing as matter of Faith religiously to be observed but that which is agreeable to the Old and New Testament and collected out of the same Doctrine by the Ancient Fathers and Catholick Bishops of the Church This was undoubtedly the Faith of the Primitive Church they admitted all into their Communion that were of this Faith they condemned no Man that did not condemn these they gave Letters communicatory by no other cognisance and all were Brethren who spake this voice Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanosque judicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere said the Emperours Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius in their Proclamation to the People of C. P. All that believ'd this Doctrine were Christians and Catholicks viz. all they who believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost one Divinity of equal Majesty in the Holy Trinity which indeed was the sum of what was decreed in explication of the Apostles Creed in the four first General Councils And what Faith can be the foundation of a more solid peace the surer ligaments of Catholick Communion or the firmer basis of a holy life and of the hopes of Heaven hereafter than the measures which the Holy Primitive Church did hold and we after them That which we rely upon is the same that the Primitive Church did acknowledge to be the adequate foundation of their hopes in the matters of belief The way which they thought sufficient to go to Heaven in is the way which we walk what they did not teach we do not publish and impose into this Faith intirely and into no other as they did theirs so we baptize our Catechumens The Discriminations of Heresie from Catholick Doctrine which they us'd we use also and we use no other and in short we believe all that Doctrine which the Church of Rome believes except those things which they have superinduc'd upon the Old Religion and in which we shall prove that they have innovated So that by their confession all the Doctrine which we teach the people as matter of Faith must be confessed to be Ancient Primitive and Apostolick or else theirs is not so for ours is the same and we both have received this Faith from the Fountains of Scripture and Universal Tradition not they from us or we from them but both of us from Christ and his Apostles And therefore there can be no question whether the Faith of the Church of England be Apostolick or Primitive it is so confessedly But the Question is concerning many other particulars which were unknown to the Holy Doctors of the first Ages which were no part of their faith which were never put into their Creeds which were not determin'd in any of the four first General Councils rever'd in all Christendom and entertain'd every where with great Religion and Veneration even next to the four Gospels and the Apostolical Writings Of this sort because the Church of Rome hath introduc'd many and hath adopted them into their late Creed and imposes them upon the People not only without but against the Scriptures and the Catholick Doctrine of the Church of God laying heavy burdens on mens Consciences and making the narrow way to Heaven yet narrower by their own inventions arrogating to themselves a dominion over our faith and prescribing a method of Salvation which Christ and his Apostles never taught corrupting the Faith of the Church of God and teaching for Doctrines the Commandements of Men and lastly having derogated from the Prerogative of Christ who alone is the Author and finisher of our Faith and hath perfected it in the revelations consign'd in the Holy Scriptures therefore it is that we
were press'd in the Council of Florence by Pope Eugenius and by their necessity how unwillingly they consented how ambiguously they answered how they protested against having that half-consent put into the Instrument of Union how they were yet constrain'd to it by their Chiefs being obnoxious to the Pope how a while after they dissolv'd that Union and to this day refuse to own this Doctrine are things so notoriously known that they need no further declaration We add this only to make the conviction more manifest We have thought fit to annex some few but very clear testimonies of Antiquity expresly destroying the new Doctrine of Purgatory Saint Cyprian saith Quando istinc excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis effectus When we are gone from hence there is no place left for repentance and no effect of satisfaction Saint Dionysius call the extremity of death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The end of all our Agonies and affirms That the Holy men of God rest in joy and in never-failing hopes and are come to the end of their holy combates Saint Justin Martyr affirms That when the soul is departed from the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently there is a separation made of the just and unjust The unjust are by Angels born into places which they have deserv'd but the souls of the just into Paradise where they have the conversation of Angels and Archangels Saint Ambrose saith That Death is a Haven of rest and makes not our condition worse but according as it finds every man so it reserves him to the judgment that is to come The same is affirmed by Saint Hilary c Saint Macarius and divers others they speak but of two states after death of the just and the unjust These are plac'd in horrible Regions reserv'd to the judgment of the great day the other have their souls carried by Quires of Angels into places of Rest. Saint Gregory Nazianzen expresly affirms That after this life there is no purgation For after Christ's ascension into Heaven the souls of all Saints are with Christ saith Gennadius and going from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their body with it to pass into the perfection of perpetual bliss and this he delivers as the Doctrine of the Catholick Church In what place soever a man is taken at his death of light or darkness of wickedness or vertue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same order and in the same degree either in light with the just and with Christ the great King or in darkness with the unjust and with the Prince of Darkness said Olympiodorus And lastly we recite the words of Saint Leo one of the Popes of Rome speaking of the Penitents who had not perform'd all their penances But if any one of them for whom we pray unto the Lord being interrupted by any obstacles falls from the gift of the present Indulgence viz. of Ecclesiastical Absolution and before he arrive at the appointed remedies that is before he hath perform'd his penances or satisfactions ends his temporal life that which remaining in the body he hath not receiv'd when he is devested of his body he cannot obtain He knew not of the new devices of paying in Purgatory what they paid not here and of being cleansed there who were not clean here And how these words or any of the precedent are reconcileable with the Doctrines of Purgatory hath not yet entred into our imagination To conclude this particular We complain greatly that this Doctrine which in all the parts of it is uncertain and in the late additions to it in Rome is certainly false is yet with all the faults of it passed into an Article of Faith by the Council of Trent But besides what hath been said it will be more than sufficient to oppose against it these clearest words of Scripture Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth even so saith the Spirit that they may rest from their labours If all the dead that die in Christ be at rest and are in no more affliction or labours then the Doctrine of the horrible pains of Purgatory is as false as it is uncomfortable To these words we add the saying of Christ and we rely upon it He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal life and cometh not into judgment but passeth from death unto life If so then not into the judgment of Purgatory If the servant of Christ passeth from death to life then not from death to the terminable pains of a part of Hell They that have eternal life suffer no intermedial punishment judgment or condemnation after death for death and life are the whole progression according to the Doctrine of Christ and Him we chuse to follow SECT V. THE Doctrine of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the very time it began to be own'd publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrine and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduc'd For all the world knows that by their own parties by Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men it was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches Declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of novelty But further we know it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Pope Innocent the Third one thousand two hundred years and more after Christ that since that pretended determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have been no more satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirm'd that the Article is not express'd in Scripture particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckon'd And therefore if it was not express'd in Scripture it will be too clear that they made their Articles of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it was there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith But that we may put it past argument and probability it is certain that as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not at all taught as a Catholick Doctrine or an Article of the Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now for this we need no proof
certo sciuntur eventura ut petuntur hujus rei plurima sunt testimonia said Alphonsus à Castro and so also Medina and Bellarmine acknowledge The thing is true they say but if it were not yet we find that de facto they do pray Domine Jesu Christe rex gloriae libera animas Fidelium defunctorum de poenis Inferni de profundo lacu libera eos de ore leonis ne absorbeat eos Tartarus ne cadant in obscurum So it is in the Masses pro defunctis And therefore this Gentleman talking that in Heaven all is remitted and in Hell nothing is forgiven and from hence to conclude that there is no avoiding of Purgatory is too hasty a conclusion let him stay till he comes to Heaven and the final sentence is past and then he will if he finds it to be so have reason to say what he does but by that time the dream of Purgatory will be out and in the mean time let him strive to understand his Mass-book better Saint Austin thought he had reason to pray for pardon and remission for his Mother for the Reasons already expressed though he never thought his Mother was in Purgatory It was upon consideration of the dangers of every soul that dies in Adam and yet he affirms she was even before her death alive unto Christ. And therefore she did not die miserable nor did she die at all said her Son Hoc documentis ejus morum fide non ficta rationibus certis tenebamus and when he did pray for her Credo jam feceris quod te rogo sed voluntaria oris mei approba Domine which will yet give another answer to this confident Gentleman Saint Austin prayed for pardon for his Mother and did believe the thing was done already but he prayed to God to approve that voluntary Oblation of his mouth So that now all the Objection is vanished S. Austin prayed besides many other Reasons to manifest his kindness not for any need she had But after all this was not Saint Monica a Saint Is she not put in the Roman Calendar and the fourth of May appointed for her Festival And do Saints do Canoniz'd persons use to go to Purgatory But let it be as it will I only desire that this be remembred against a good time that here it is confessed that prayers were offered for a Saint departed I fear it will be denied by and by But 2. The Fathers made prayers for those who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory for the Patriarchs Apostles c. and especially for the Blessed Virgin Mary this which is a direct and perfect overthrow of the Roman Doctrine of Purgatory and therefore if it can be made good they have no probability left upon the confidence of which they can plausibly pretend to Purgatory I have already offered something in proof of this which I shall now review and confirm fully I begin with that of Durantus whom I alledged as confessing that they offer'd for the Patriarchs and Prophets and the Blessed Virgin I intend him for no more for true it is he denies that the Church prayed for them but that they communicated and offered sacrifice for them even for the Blessed Virgin Mary her self this he grants I have alledged him a little out of the order because observing where Durantus and the Roman Doctors are mistaken and with what boldness they say that offering for them is only giving thanks and that the Greek Fathers did only offer for them Eucharists but no Prayers I thought it fit first to reprove that initial error viz. that Communicantes offerentes pro sanctis is not Prayer and then to make it clear that they did really pray for mercy for pardon for a place of rest for eternal glory for them who never were in Purgatory for it is a great ignorance to suppose that when it is said the sacrifice or oblation is offered it must mean only thanksgiving For it is called in Saint Dionys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Eucharistical prayer and the Lords Supper is a sacrifice in genere orationis and by themselves is intended as propitiatory for the quick and dead And Saint Cyprian speaking of Bishops being made Executors of Testaments saith Si quis hoc fecisset non offerretur pro eo nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebratur Neque enim ad altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece qui ab altari sacerdotes avocare voluit Where offerre and celebrare sacrificium pro dormitione is done sacerdotum prece it is the oblation and sacrifice of prayer and Saint Cyprian presently after joyns them together pro dormitione ejus oblatio aut deprecatio And if we look at the forms in the old Roman Liturgy us'd in the dayes of Pope Innocent the third we shall find this well expounded prosit huic sancto vel illi talis oblatio ad gloriam They offered but the Offering it self was not Eucharistical but deprecatory And so it is also in the Armenian Liturgy publish'd at Crackow Per hanc etiam oblationem da aeternam pacem omnibus qui nos precesserunt in fide Christi sanctis Patribus Patriarchis Apostolis Prophetis Martyribus c. which testimony does not only evince that the offering Sacrifices and Oblations for the Saints did signifie praying for them but that this they did for all Saints whatsoever And concerning Saint Chrysostom that which Sixtus Senensis sayes is material to this very purpose Et in Liturgia Divini sacrificii ab eo edita in variis homiliis ab eodem approbata conscripsit formulam precandi offerendi pro omnibus fidelibus defunctis praecipue pro animabus beatorum in haec verba Offerimus tibi rationalem hunc cultum pro in fide requiescentibus Patribus Patriarchis Prophetis Apostolis Martyribus c. By which confession it is acknowledged not only that the Church prayed for Apostles and Martyrs but that they intended to do so when they offered the Sacramental Oblations and offerimus is offerimus tibi preces Now since it is so I had advantage enough in the confession of their own Durantus that he acknowledged so much that the Church offered sacrifice for Saints Now though he presently kick'd this down with his foot and denied that they prayed for Saints departed I shall yet more clearly convince him and all the Roman Contradictors of their bold and unreasonable error in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a Witness but because I cited no words of his and my Adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the Argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the Just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists
and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their Prayers and Oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prayes for one sort and only gives thanks for the other as these Gentlemen the Objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the Righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent To which greater light is given by the words of Saint Austin Who is he for whom no man prayes but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of Saint Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his Adversary or for his own cause Saint Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful Sacrifice If Saint Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the Militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful Sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak Argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the Memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of Saint Cyril are very plain The third Allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confessâ—d even by these Gentlemen the Objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the Letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of Saint James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted Saint James and I wonder that he should urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own Allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and Saint Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the Land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the Letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sence and practice of the Greek Canon in this Question And first for Saint James his Liturgy which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of Saint James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine Sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the Region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually shines In the Liturgy of Saint Basil which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this Prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of Faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for Religion and have fed thy holy Flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of
their Religion or their Churches But now since these periods it is plain that the case is altered and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Jews in their worshipping of images as is to be seen besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Jews in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle in Sepher Amana and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues But I suppose this case is very plain and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome 5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill so like Idolatry so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens that it was infinitely reasonable that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered and stated the question how far and in what sence it was lawful and with what intention and in what degrees and with what caution and distinctions this might lawfully be done particularly when they preach'd and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice God forbidding any image and similitude to be made of himself or any thing else in Heaven or in Earth or in the Sea and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it and yet that they should make no account nor take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon This indeed is very Unlikely But so it is Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter and speak plain down-right words against making and worshipping images and so careless they were of any future chance or the present concern of the Roman Church that they do not except the image of the true God nor the image of Saints and Angels no not of Christ or the Blessed Virgin Mary her self Nay Origen expounds the Commandments and S. Austin makes a professed commentary upon them but touch'd none of these things with the top of his finger only told that they were all forbidden we are not so careless now adays in the Church of Rome but carefully expound the Commandments against the unsufferable objections of the Hereticks of late and the Prophets and the Fathers of old But yet for all this a suspicious man would conclude that in the first 400. years there was no need of any such explications inasmuch as they had nothing to do with images which only could make any such need 6. But then in the next place I consider that the second Commandment is so plain so easie so peremptory against all the making and worshipping any image or likeness of any thing that besides that every man naturally would understand all such to be forbidden it is so expressed that upon supposition that God did intend to forbid it wholly it could not more plainly have been expressed For the prohibition is absolute and universal and therefore of all particulars and there is no word or sign by the vertue of which it can with any probability be pretended that any one of any kind is excepted Now then to this when the Church of Rome pretends to answer they over-do it and make the matter the more suspicious Some of them answer by saying that this is no moral Commandment not obligatory to Christians but to the Jews only Others say that by this Commandment it is only forbidden to account an image to be very God so Cajetan Others say that an idol only is forbidden and that an image is no idol Others yet distinguish the manner of worshipping saying that the image is worshipp'd for the Samplers sake not for its own And this worship is by some called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or service by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saying that the first is to images of Saints the other to God only And yet with this difference Some saying that the image of God is ador'd with the same kind of adoration that God is only it is to the image for Gods sake so S. Thomas of Aquine and generally his scholars Others say that it is a religious kind of Worship due to Images but not at all Divine some say it is but a civil worship And then it is for the image sake and so far is intransitive but whatever is paid more to the image is transitive and passes further And whatsoever it be it cannot be agreed how it ought to be paid whether properly or improperly Vnivocally or aequivocally for themselves or for something else whether analogically or simply whether absolutely or by reduction And it is remarkable what Bellarmine answers to the Question with what kind of worship images may be ador'd He answers with this proposition The worship which by it self and properly is due to images is a certain imperfect worship which analogically and reductively pertains to a kind of that worship which is due to the Exemplar and a little after to the images a certain inferiour worship is due and that not all one but various according to the variety of images To the images of Saints is due dulia secundum quid which if you do not understand Bellarmine in the next words explains most clearly dulia secundum quid is as a man may say reductive and analogical But after all this we may be mistaken and we cannot tell whom to follow nor what to do in the case Thomas and his Scholars warrant you to give the same worship to Gods image as to God And is the easiest way indeed to be understood and indeed may quickly be understood to be direct idolatry Bellarmine and others tell you stay not so altogether but there is a way to agree with S. Thomas that it shall be the same worship and not the same worship for it is the same by reduction that is it is of the same kind and therefore Divine but it is imperfectly divine as if there could be degrees in Divine worship that is as if any worship could be divine and yet not the greatest But if this seems difficult Bellarmine illustrates it by similitudes This worship of images is the same with the worship of the Example viz. of God or of Christ as it happens just as a painted man is the same with a living man and a painted horse with a living horse for a painted man and a painted horse differ specifically as the true man and the
secure himself that in all the mysteries of Religion taught in Scripture he shall certainly understand and explicitely believe that sence that God intended For to this purpose there are many considerations 4. First There are so many thousands of Copies that were writ by persons of several interests and perswasions such different understandings and tempers such distinct abilities and weaknesses that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New In the Old Testament the Jews pretend that the Christians have corrupted many places on purpose to make symphony between both the Testaments On the other side the Christians have had so much reason to suspect the Jews that when Aquila had translated the Bible in their Schools and had been taught by them they rejected the Edition many of them and some of them called it heresy to follow it And Justin Martyr justified it to Triphon that the Jews had defalk'd many sayings from the Books of the old Prophets and amongst the rest he instances in that of the Psalm Dicite in nationibus quia Dominus regnavit à ligno The last words they have cut off and prevailed so far in it that to this day none of our Bibles have it but if they ought not to have it then Justin Martyrs Bible had more in it than it should have for there it was so that a fault there was either under or over But however there are infinite Readings in the New-Testament for in that I will instance some whole Verses in one that are not in another and there was in some Copies of Saint Marks Gospel in the last Chapter a whole verse a Chapter it was anciently called that is not found in our Bibles as S. Hierom. ad Hedibiam q. 3. notes The words he repeats Lib. 2. contr Polygamos Et illi satis faciebant dicentes saeculum istud iniquitatis incredulitatis substantia est quae non sinit per immundos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem idcirco jam nunc revela justitiam tuam These words are thought by some to savour of Manichaism and for ought I can find were therefore rejected out of many Greek Copies and at last out of the Latine Now suppose that a Manichee in disputation should urge this place having found it in his Bible if a Catholick should answer him by saying it is Apocryphal and not found in divers Greek Copies might not the Manichee ask how it came in if it was not the word of God and if it was how came it out and at last take the same liberty of rejecting any other Authority which shall be alledged against him if he can find any Copy that may favour him however that favour be procured and did not the Ebionites reject all the Epistles of Saint Paul upon pretence he was an enemy to the Law of Moses indeed it was boldly and most unreasonably done but if one tittle or one Chapter of St. Mark be called Apocryphal for being suspected of Manichaisme it is a plea that will too much justifie others in their taking and chusing what they list But I will not urge it so far but is not there as much reason for the fierce Lutherans to reject the Epistle of Saint James for favouring justification by works or the Epistle to the Hebrews upon pretence that the sixth and tenth Chapters do favour Novatianisme especially since it was by some famous Churches at first not accepted even by the Church of Rome her self The Parable of the woman taken in adultery which is now in Joh. 8. Eusebius says was not in any Gospel but the Gospel secundum Hebraeos and St. Hierom makes it doubtful and so does St. Chrysostome and Euthymius the first not vouchsafing to explicate it in his Homilies upon St. John the other affirming it not to be found in the exacter Copies I shall not need to urge that there are some words so near in sound that the Scribes might easily mistake There is one famous one of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which yet some Copies read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sence is very unlikely though the words be near and there needs some little luxation to strain this latter reading to a good sence That famous precept of Saint Paul that the women must pray with a covering on their head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the Angels hath brought into the Church an opinion that Angels are present in Churches and are Spectatours of our devotion and deportment Such an opinion if it should meet with peevish opposites on the one side and confident Hyperaspists on the other might possibly make a Sect and here were a clear ground for the affirmative and yet who knows but that it might have been a mistake of the Transcribers for if it were read as Gothofrid and some others would have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the sence be women in publick Assemblies must wear a vail by reason of the Companies of the young men there present it would be no ill exchange for the little change of some letters in a word to make so probable so clear a sence of the place But the instances in this kind are too many as appears in the variety of readings in several Copies proceeding from the negligence or ignorance of the Transcribers or the malicious endeavour of Hereticks or the inserting Marginal Notes into the Text or the nearness of several words Indeed there is so much evidence of this particular that it hath encouraged the servants of the Vulgar Translation for so some are now adays to prefer that Translation before the Original for although they have attempted that proposition with very ill success yet that they could think it possible to be proved is an Argument there is much variety and alterations in divers Texts for if there were not it were impudence to pretend a Translation and that none of the best should be better than the Original But so it is that this variety of reading is not of slight consideration for although it be demonstrably true that all things necessary to Faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption because they are of things necessary and they could not be necessary unless they were delivered to us God in his goodness and his justice having obliged himself to preserve that which he hath bound us to observe and keep yet in other things which God hath not obliged himself so punctually to preserve in these things since variety of reading is crep◠in every reading takes away a degree of certainty from any proposition derivative from those places so read And if some Copies especially if they be publick and notable omit a verse or a tittle every argument from such a tittle or verse loses much of its strength and reputation and we find it in a great instance For when in probation of the
the Bishops of Pontus Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia that they should feed the flock of God and the great Bishop and Shepheard should give them an immarcescible Crown plainly implying that from whence they derived their Authority from him they were sure of a reward in pursuance of which S. Cyprian laid his Argument upon this basis Nam cùm statutum sit omnibus nobis c. singulis pastoribus portio gregis c. Did not S. Paul call to the Bishops of Ephesus to feed the flock of God of which the holy Ghost hath made them Bishops or Over-seers And that this very Commission was spoken to Saint Peter not in a personal but a publick capacity and in him spoke to all the Apostles we see attested by S. Austin and S. Ambrose and generally by all Antiquity and it so concern'd even every Priest that Damasus was willing enough to have S. Hierom explicate many questions for him And Liberius writes an Epistle to Athanasius with much modesty requiring his advice in a Question of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That I also may be perswaded without all doubting of those things which you shall be pleased to command me Now Liberius needed not to have troubled himself to have writ into the East to Athanasius for if he had but seated himself in his Chair and made the dictate the result of his pen and ink would certainly have taught him and all the Church but that the good Pope was ignorant that either pasce oves was his own Charter and Prerogative or that any other words of Scripture had made him to be infallible or if he was not ignorant of it he did very ill to complement himself out of it So did all those Bishops of Rome that in that troublesome and unprofitable Question of Easter being unsatisfied in the supputation of the Egyptians and the definitions of the Mathematical Bishops of Alexandria did yet require and intreat S. Ambrose to tell them his opinion as he himself witnesses If pasce oves belongs onely to the Pope by primary title in these cases the sheep came to feed the Shepheard which though it was well enough in the thing is very ill for the pretensions of the Roman Bishops And if we consider how little many of the Popes have done toward feeding the sheep of Christ we shall hardly determine which is the greater prevarication that the Pope should claim the whole Commission to be granted to him or that the execution of the Commission should be wholly passed over to others And it may be there is a mystery in it that since S. Peter sent a Bishop with his staffe to raise up a Disciple of his from the dead who was afterward Bishop of Triers the Popes of Rome never wear a Pastoral staff except it be in that Diocese says Aquinas for great reason that he who does not doe the office should not bear the Symbol But a man would think that the Pope's Master of the Ceremonies was ill advised not to assigne a Pastoral staffe to him who pretends the Commission of pasce oves to belong to him by prime right and origination But this is not a business to be merry in 6. But the great support is expected from Tu es Petrus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam c. Now there being so great difference in the exposition of these words by persons dis-interessed who if any might be allowed to judge in this Question it is certain that neither one sense nor other can be obtruded for an Article of Faith much less as a Catholicon in stead of all by constituting an Authority which should guide us in all Faith and determine us in all Questions For if the Church was not built upon the person of Peter then his Successors can challenge nothing from this instance now that it was the confession of Peter upon which the Church was to rely for ever we have witnesses very credible S. Ignatius S. Basil S. Hilary S. Gregory Nyssen S. Gregory the Great S. Austin S. Cyril of Alexandria Isidore Pelusiot and very many more And although all these witnesses concurring cannot make a proposition to be true yet they are sufficient witnesses that it was not the Universal belief of Christendom that the Church was built upon S. Peter's person Cardinal Peron hath a fine fancy to elude this variety of Exposition and the consequents of it For saith he these Expositions are not contrary or exclusive of each other but inclusive and consequent to each other For the Church is founded casually upon the confession of S. Peter formally upon the ministry of his person and this was a reward or a consequent of the former So that these Expositions are both true but they are conjoyn'd as mediate and immediate direct and collateral literal and moral original and perpetuall accessory and temporal the one consign'd at the beginning the other introduced upon occasion For before the spring of the Arrian heresy the Fathers expounded these words of the person of Peter but after the Arrians troubled them the Fathers finding great Authority and Energy in this confession of Peter for the establishment of the natural filiation of the Son of God to advance the reputation of these words and the force of the Argument gave themselves licence to expound these words to the present advantage and to make the confession of Peter to be the foundation of the Church that if the Arrians should encounter this Authority they might with more prejudice to their persons declaim against their cause by saying they overthrew the foundation of the Church Besides that this answer does much dishonour the reputation of the Fathers integrity and makes their interpretations less credible as being made not of knowledge or reason but of necessity and to serve a present turn it is also false for Ignatius expounds it in a spiritual sense which also the Liturgy attributed to S. James calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Origen expounds it mystically to a third purpose but exclusively to this And all these were before the Arrian Controversy But if it be lawfull to make such unproved observations it would have been to better purpose and more reason to have observed it thus The Fathers so long as the Bishop of Rome kept himself to the limits prescribed him by Christ and indulged to him by the Constitution or concession of the Church were unwary and apt to expound this place of the person of Peter but when the Church began to enlarge her phylacteries by the favour of Princes and the sunshine of a prosperous fortune and the Pope by the advantage of the Imperial Seat and other accidents began to invade upon the other Bishops and Patriarchs then that he might have no colour from Scripture for such new pretensions they did most generally turn the stream of their expositions
Hereticks to death till they grew wanton with prosperity But when the reputation of the Governours was concerned when the interests of men were endangered when they had something to lose when they had built their estimation upon the credit of disputable Questions when they began to be jealous of other men when they over-valued themselves and their own Opinions when some persons invaded Bishopricks upon pretence of new Opinions then they as they thrived in the favour of Emperours and in the successe of their Disputes solicited the temporal power to banish to fine to imprison and to kill their adversaries 5. So that the case stands thus In the best times amongst the best men when there were fewer temporal ends to be served when Religion and the pure and simple designs of Christianity were onely to be promoted in those times and amongst such men no persecution was actual nor perswaded nor allowed towards disagreeing persons But as men had ends of their own and not of Christ as they receded from their duty and Religion from its purity as Christianity began to be compounded with interests and blended with temporal designs so men were persecuted for their Opinions This is most apparent if we consider when Persecution first came in and if we observe how it was checked by the holiest and the wisest persons 6. The first great instance I shall note was in Priscillian and his followers who were condemned to death by the Tyrant Maximus Which instance although Saint Hierom observes as a punishment and judgement for the crime of Heresie yet is of no use in the present Question because Maximus put some Christians of all sorts to death promiscuously Catholick and Heretick without choice and therefore the Priscillianists might as well have called it a judgement upon the Catholicks as the Catholicks upon them 7. But when Vrsatus and Stacius two Bishops procured the Priscillianists death by the power they had at Court Saint Martin was so angry at them for their cruelty that he excommunicated them both And Saint Ambrose upon the same stock denied his communion to the Itaciani And the account that Sulpitius gives of the story is this Hoc modo says he homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati sunt The example was worse then the men If the men were hereticall the execution of them however was unchristian 8. But it was of more Authority that the Nicene Fathers supplicated the Emperour and prevailed for the banishment of Arius Of this we can give no other account but that by the history of the time we see baseness enough and personal misdemeanour and factiousnesse of spirit in Arius to have deserved worse then banishment though the obliquity of his Opinion were not put into the balance which we have reason to believe was not so much as considered because Constantine gave toleration to differing Opinions and Arius himself was restored upon such conditions to his Countrey and Office which would not stand with the ends of the Catholicks if they had been severe exactors of concurrence and union of perswasions 9. I am still within the scene of Ecclesiasticall persons and am considering what the opinion of the learnedst and the holiest Prelates was concerning this great Question If we will believe Saint Austin who was a credible person no good man did allow it Nullis tamen bonis in Catholica hoc placet si usque ad mortem in quenquam licèt haereticum saeviatur This was Saint Austin's final opinion For he had first been of the mind that it was not honest to doe any violence to mis-perswaded persons and when upon an accident happening in Hippo he had altered and retracted that part of the opinion yet then also he excepted Death and would by no means have any mere Opinion made capital But for ought appears Saint Austin had greater reason to have retracted that retractation then his first opinion for his saying of nullis bonis placet was as true as the thing was reasonable it should be so Witnesse those known Testimonies of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius S. Hierom Severus Sulpitius Minutius Hilary Damascen Chrysostome Theophylact and Bernard and divers others whom the Reader may find quoted by the Archbishop of Spalato Lib. 8. de Rep. Eccl. c. 8. 10. Against this concurrent testimony my reading can furnish me with no adversary nor contrary instances but in Atticus of CP Theodosius of Synada in Stacius and Vrsatus before reckoned Onely indeed some of the later Popes of Rome began to be busie and unmercifull but it was then when themselves were secure and their interests great and their temporal concernments highly considerable 11. For it is most true and not amisse to observe it that no man who was under the Ferula did ever think it lawfull to have Opinions forced or Hereticks put to death and yet many men who themselves have escaped the danger of a pile and a faggot have changed their opinion just as the case was altered that is as themselves were unconcerned in the suffering Petilian Parmenian and Gaudentius by no means would allow it lawfull for themselves were in danger and were upon that side that is ill thought of and discountenanced but Gregory and †Leo Popes of Rome upon whose side the authority and advantages were thought it lawfull they should be punished and persecuted for themselves were unconcerned in the danger of suffering And therefore Saint Gregory commends the Exarch of Ravenna for forcing them who dissented from those men who called themselves the Church And there were some Divines in the lower Germany who upon great reasons spake against the tyranny of the Inquisition and restraining Prophesying who yet when they had shaken off the Spanish yoke began to persecute their brethren It was unjust in them in all men unreasonable and uncharitable and often increases the errour but never lessens the danger 12. But yet although the Church I mean in her distinct and Clerical capacity was against destroying or punishing difference in Opinion till the Popes of Rome did superseminate and perswade the contrary yet the Bishops did perswade the Emperours to make Laws against Hereticks and to punish disobedient persons with Fines with Imprisonment with Death and Banishment respectively This indeed calls us to a new account For the Churchmen might not proceed to bloud nor corporal inflictions but might they not deliver over to the Secular arm and perswade Temporal Princes to doe it For this I am to say that since it is notorious that the doctrine of the Clergy was against punishing Hereticks the Laws which were made by the Emperours against them might be for restraint of differing Religion in order to the preservation of the publick Peace which is too frequently violated by the division of Opinions But I am not certain whether that was alwaies the reason or whether or no some Bishops of the Court did
first Council of Arles decreed concerning the Arrians that if they had been Baptized in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost they should not be re-baptized Manus tantùm eis imponatur ut accipiant Spiritum Sanctum that is Let them be Confirm'd let there be Imposition of hands that they may receive the Holy Ghost The same is decreed by the second Council of Arles in the case of the Bonasiact But I also find it in a greater record in the General Council of Constantinople where Hereticks are commanded upon their Conversion to be received secundùm constitutum Officium there was an Office appointed for it and it is in the Greeks Euchologion sigillatos primò scil Vnctos Vnguento Chrismatis c. signantes eos dicimus Sigillum doni Spiritûs Sancti It is the form of Confirmation used to this day in the Greek Church So many Fathers testifying the practice of the Church and teaching this Doctrine and so many more Fathers as were assembled in six Councils all giving witness to this holy Rite and that in pursuance also of Scripture are too great a Cloud of Witnesses to be despised by any man that calls himself a Christian. SECT IV. The BISHOPS were always and the only Ministers of Confirmation SAint Chrysostom asking the reason why the Samaritans who were Baptized by Philip could not from him and by his Ministery receive the Holy Ghost answers Perhaps this was done for the honour of the Apostles to distinguish the supereminent dignity which they bore in the Church from all inferior Ministrations but this answer not satisfying he adds Hoc donum non habebat erat enim ex Septem illis id quod magìs videtur dicendum Vnde meâ sententiâ hic Philippus unus ex septem erat secundus à Stephano ideo Baptizans Spiritum Sanctum non dabat neque enim facultatem habebat hoc enim donum solorum Apostolorum erat This Gift they had not who Baptized the Samaritans which thing is rather to be said than the other for Philip was one of the Seven and in my opinion next to S. Stephen therefore though he Baptized yet he gave not the Holy Ghost for he had no power so to do for this Gift was proper only to the Apostles Nam virtutem quidem acceperant Diaconi faciendi Signa non autem dandi aliis Spiritum Sanctum igitur hoc erat in Apostolis singulare unde praecipuos non alios videmus hoc facere The Ministers that Baptized had a power of doing Signs and working Miracles but not of giving the Holy Spirit therefore this Gift was peculiar to the Apostles whence it comes to pass that we see the chiefs in the Church and no other to do this S. Dionys says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is need of a Bishop to Confirm the Baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this was the ancient custom of the Church And this was wont to be done by the Bishops for conservation of Unity in the Church of Christ said S. Ambrose A solis Episcopis By Bishops only said S. Austin For the Bishops succeeded in the place and ordinary Office of the Apostles said S. Hierom. And therefore in his Dialogue against the Luciferians it is said That this observation for the honour of the Priesthood did descend that the Bishops only might by Imposition of Hands confer the Holy Ghost that it comes from Scripture that it is written in the Acts of the Apostles that it is done for the prevention of Schisms that the safety of the Church depends upon it But the words of P. Innocentius I. in his first Epistle and third Chapter and published in the first Tome of the Councils are very full to this particular De consignandis Infantibus manifestum est non ab alio quà m ab Episcopo fieri licere nam Presbyteri licèt sâ—nt Sacerdotes Pontificatûs tamen apicem non habent haec autem Pontificibus solis deberi ut vel consignent vel paracletum Spiritum tradant non solùm consuetudo Ecclesiastica demonstrat verùm illa lectio Actuum Apostolorum quae asserit Petrum Joannem esse directos qui jam Baptizatis traderent Spiritum Sanctum Concerning Confirmation of Infants it is manifest it is not Lawful to be done by any other than by the Bishop for although the Presbyters be Priests yet they have not the Summity of Episcopacy But that these things are only due to Bishops is â—ot only demonstrated by the custom of the Church but by that of the Acts of the Apostles where Peter and John were sent to minister the Holy Ghost to them that were Baptized Optatus proves Macarius to be no Bishop because he was not conversant in the Episcopal Office and Imposed hands on none that were Baptized Hoc unum à majoribus fit id est à summis Pontificibus quod à minoribus perfici non potest said P. Melchiades This of Confirmation is only done by the greater Ministers that is by the Bishops and cannot be done by the lesser This was the constant Practice and Doctrine of the Primitive Church and derived from the practice and tradition of the Apostles and recorded in their Acts written by S. Luke For this is our great Rule in this case what they did in Rituals and consigned to Posterity is our Example and our warranty we see it done thus and by these men and by no others and no otherwise and we have no other authority and we have no reason to go another way The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Luke the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Chrysostom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Philo and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the chief Governour in Ecclesiasticals his Office is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to teach such things as are not set down in Books their Practice is a Sermon their Example in these things must be our Rule or else we must walk irregularly and have no Rule but Chance and Humour Empire and Usurpation and therefore much rather when it is recorded in Holy Writ must this Observation be esteemed Sacred and inviolable But how if a Bishop be not to be had or not ready S. Ambrose is pretended to have answered Apud Aegyptum Presbyteri consignant si praesens non sit Episcopus A Presbyter may consign if the Bishop be not present and Amalarius affirms Sylvestrum Papam praevidentem quantum periculosum iter arriperet qui sine Confirmatione maneret quantum potuit subvenisse propter absentiam Episcoporum necessitate addidisse ut à Presbytero Vngerentur That Pope Sylvester fore-seeing how dangerous a Journey he takes who abides without Confirmation brought remedy as far as he could and commanded that in the absence of Bishops they should be anointed by the Priest and therefore it is by some supposed that factum valet sieri non debuit The thing ought
caused those to be burned for hereticks that made pictures of the Trinity 555. The Primitive Church did confirm hereticks reconciled 32. b. The nature and differences of Heresie 947 948. and 964 965 seq Of the heresie of the Encratites Gnosticks 949 n. 8. Of such heresies as are named such in the N. Testament 948 n. 6. It is not an errour of the understanding onely 949 n. 8. How an errour becomes evil in genere morum 950 n. 9. A mere errour of the understanding is no sin 950 n. 10. What addition it is that makes errour become heresie 950 n. 10. No man is an heretick against his will 951 n. 12. The title of Heresie was sometimes given upon very slight grounds 953 n. 17. Of the ancient Catalogues of Heresie 955 n. 18 19. Of rebaptizing Hereticks 957 958 968. Ambition the cause of many heresies 1022. Hosea Chapter 6. v. 7. explained 711. I. Saint James HE was called an Apostle because he was a Bishop 48 § 4. Saint James Bishop of Jerusalem was not one of the 12 Apostles 48 § 4. Epist. of Saint James Chap. 2. v. 10. Whosoever shall keep the whole and yet offends in one point is guilty of all explained 649 n. 55. Chap. 1.13 explained 737 n. 90. Idolatry 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. The distinction of material and formal Idolatry hath no place in practical Divinity 269 § 13. The worshipping of Images is Idolatry 337 § 12. and not to be excused by that distinction of terminativè relativè 338 c. 2. § 12. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of their worshipping Images 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. Jeremiah Chap. 2. v. 13. digged for them cisterns explained 332. Saint Jerome Concerning his testimony taken out of his Comment upon Titus usually brought against the sole authority of Bishops 77 § 21. per tot and ss 44. and pag. 144. The Bishop for his acts of Judicature was responsible to none but God 145 146 § 44. The Presbyter's assistance to the Bishop was never necessary and when practised was voluntary on the Bishop's part 147 § 44. Ignorance Where it self is no sin the action flowing from it is no sin neither 795 n. 64. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning of it 199 § 4. Images The worship of Images was brought in by the first Hereticks 306. Saint Cyril and Epiphanius against the worship of Images 306. The Council of Eliberis and the Synod of Francford were against the worship of Images 306. The doctrine of Image-worship was not held for Catholick either in France or Germany for almost 1000 years after Christ 307. The worship of them is such Idolatry as no distinction of theirs can excuse 337 338 c. 2. § 12. Heathens could not worship an Image terminativè 338. Of the testimony of the Eliberitan Council against Images 538. Of the second Council of Nice and that of Francford and the Capitular of Charles the Great 540 541. The testimony of Epiphanius out of his Epistle translated by Saint Hierome against the worship of Images 536. The worship of them came from a very infamous original viz. Simon Magus 445. The Jews never objected the worship of Images against the Primitive Christians 546. In that part of the Thalmud written about A. D. 200. the Jews object nothing against the Christians for worshipping Images but in that which was written about A. D. 1000. or 1100. they do 546. The devices that the Romanists use to excuse the Idolatry of Image-worship 547. The niceties that every Idiot must trouble his conscience with that worships Images the Popish way 548. When Image-worship came first into England 550. What gave the Iconoclasticks the first occasion 1017. Impossible Of God's power to doe things impossible 233 § 11. Why should not the many impossibilities be a bar against the belief of the Trinity as well as Transubstantiation 242 § 11. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is impossible and implies contradictions 301. Arguments to prove that perfect obedience to God's Law is impossible 576 577. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 809 n. 39. A limited signification of it 839 n. 39. Imputare What the word signifies 886. Of our justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness 901 902. The sense and meaning of Imputation in the matter of imputed righteousness by Christ 903. Index Expurgatorius The Caution the King of Spain gave in the first making that kind of Index 289 c. 1. § 1. Indulgences When they were first set up 291. Some of their own Writers confess that there is no direct warrant for them neither in the Fathers nor Scripture 291. There is nothing of Indulgences in Pet. Lombard nor in all Gratian 291. The meaning of their Article of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. Mayron and Durandus disputed against Indulgences 291. Cardinal Cajetan's opinion of Indulgences 291 c. 1. § 3. The mischief of them 292. At first they could not agree what the penitent or purchaser got by it 292 293. Indulgences imployed to raise a portion for the Pope's Niece 292. Of their Indulgences 318 316 c. 2. § 3. What is the use of so many hundred thousand years of pardon 317. The many difficulties about them 319. They make not the multitude of Masses less necessary 320 c. 2. § 4. Good life undermin'd by their doctrine of Indulgences 320. Venial sins hinder the fruit of Indulgences 320. Pope Adrian taught that a man out of the state of Grace may merit for another in the state of Grace 320 321. When the doctrine of Indulgences was first brought into the Church 495. Villains have been hired by Indulgences to commit murther 497. A strange unintelligible Indulgence given by two Popes about the beginning of the Council of Trent 498. Some considerations upon the practice of Indulgences 498. Infallibility Of the Pope's Infallibility 995 sect 7. per tot Neither Irenaeus nor Saint Cyprian believed the Pope's Infallibility 1001. Concerning that text Matth. 16.18 Tu es Petrus super hanc petram 996 997. Of that text Matth. 16.19 tibi dabo claves 996. Instances of such actions of divers ancient Popes as were not very consistent with an opinion of the infallible chair 997. Perron's phansy upon Tu es Petrus turned against himself 998. Saint Paul was Bishop of the Church of Gentiles at Rome how then comes the Infallibility by right of succession from Saint Peter 999. Divers Popes were Hereticks and impious as Zepherinus 1003. Pope Innocent III. argued ridiculously when he was in Cathedra 1003. Pope Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Synod and that condemnation ratified in the eighth ibid. When Sixtus IV. appointed a festival for the immaculate Conception and offices for it the Dominicans would not receive it and it is not at this day
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
yet even in Scripture names are so distinguished that meer Presbyters are never called Bishops unless it be in conjunction with Bishops and then in the General address which in all fair deportments is made to the more eminent sometimes Presbyters are or may be comprehended This observation if it prove true will clearly show that the confusion of names of Episcopus and Presbyter such as it is in Scripture is of no pretence by any intimation of Scripture for the indistinction of Offices for even the names in Scripture it self are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never called a Bishop but a Bishop and Apostle is often called a Presbyter as in the instances above But we will consider those places of Scripture which use to be pretended in those impertinent arguings from the identity of Name to confusion of things and shew that they neither enterfere upon the main Question nor this observation * Paul and Timotheus to all the Saints which are in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the Bishops and Deacons I am willinger to chuse this instance because the place is of much consideration in the whole Question and I shall take this occasion to clear it from prejudice and disadvantage * By Bishops are here meant Presbyters because * many Bishops in a Church could * not be and yet Saint Paul speaks plurally of the Bishops of the Church of Philippi * and therefore must mean mere * Presbyters so it is pretended 1. Then By Bishops are or may be meant the whole superiour Order of the Clergy Bishops and Priests and that he speaks plurally he may besides the Bishops in the Church comprehend under their name the Presbyters too for why may not the name be comprehended as well as the office and order the inferiour under the superiour the lesser within the greater for since the order of Presbyters is involved in the Bishops order and is not only inclusively in it but derivative from it the same name may comprehend both persons because it does comprehend the distinct offices and orders of them both And in this sence it is if it be at all that Presbyters are sometimes in Scripture called Bishops * 2. Why may not Bishops be understood properly For there is no necessity of admitting that there were any mere Presbyters at all at the first founding of this Church It can neither be proved from Scripture nor Antiquity if it were denyed For indeed a Bishop or a company of Episcopal men as there were at Antioch might do all that Presbyters could and much more And considering that there are some necessities of a Church which a Presbyter cannot supply and a Bishop can it is more imaginable that there was no Presbyter than that there was no Bishop And certainly it is most unlikely that what is not expressed to wit Presbyters should be only meant and that which is expressed should not be at all intended * 3. With the Bishops may be understood in the proper sence and yet no more Bishops in one Diocess than one of a fixt residence for in that sence is Saint Chrysostom and the Fathers to be understood in their Commentaries on this place affirming that one Church could have but one Bishop but then take this along that it was not then unusual in such great Churches to have many men who were temporary Residentiaries but of an Apostolical and Episcopal authority as in the Churches of Jerusalem Rome Antioch there was as I have proved in the premises Nay in Philippi it self if I mistake not as instance may be given full and home to this purpose Salutant te Episcopi Onesimus Titus Demas Polybius omnes qui sunt Philippis in Christo unde haec vobis scripsi saith Ignatius in his Epistle to Hero his Deacon So that many Bishops we see might be at Philippi and many were actually there long after Saint Paul's dictate of the Epistle * 4. Why may not Bishops be meant in the proper sence Because there could not be more Bishops than one in a Diocess No By what Law If by a constitution of the Church after the Apostles times that hinders not but it might be otherwise in the Apostles times If by a Law in the Apostles times then we have obtained the main Question by the shift and the Apostles did ordain that there should be one and but one Bishop in a Church although it is evident they appointed many Presbyters And then let this Objection be admitted how it will and do its worst we are safe enough * 5. With the Bishops may be taken distributively for Philippi was a Metropolis and had divers Bishopricks under it and Saint Paul writing to the Church of Philippi wrote also to all the daughter Churches within its circuit and therefore might well salute many Bishops though writing to one Metropolis and this is the more probable if the reading of this place be accepted according to Oecumenius for he reads it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coepiscopis Diaconis Paul and Timothy to the Saints at Philippi and to our fellow Bishops * 6. S. Ambrose refers this clause of Cum Episcopis Diaconis to Saint Paul and Saint Timothy intimating that the benediction and salutation was sent to the Saints at Philippi from Saint Paul and Saint Timothy with â—he Bishops and Deacons so that the reading must be thus Paul and Timothy with the Bishops and Deacons to all the Saints at Philippi c. Cum Episcopis Diaconis hoc est cum Paulo Timotheo qui utique Episcopi erant simul significavit Diaconos qui ministrabant ei Ad plebem enim scribit Nam si Episcopis scriberet Diaconis ad personas eorum scriberet loci ipsius Episcopo scribendum erat non duobus vel tribus sicut ad Titum Timotheum * 7. The like expression to this is in the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians which may give another light to this speaking of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They delivered their first fruits to the Bishops and Deacons Bishops here indeed may be taken distributively and so will not infer that many Bishops were collectively in any one Church but yet this gives intimation for another exposition of this clause to the Philippians For here either Presbyters are meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministers or else Presbyters are not taken care of in the Ecclesiastical provision which no man imagines of what interest soever he be it follows then that Bishops and Deacons are no more but Mâ—jores and Minores Sacerdotes in both places for as Presbyter and Episcopus were confounded so also Presbyter and Diaconus And I think it will easily be shewn in Scripture that the word Diaconus is given oftner to Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters than to those Ministers whiâ—h now by way of appropriation we call Deacons But of this anon Now again to
not become a precedent to others lest the inconveniences of multiplying more Articles upon a great pretence of reason as then make the act of the Nicene Fathers in straightning Prophesying and enlarging the Creed become accidentally an inconvenience The first restraint although if it had been complained of might possibly have been better considered of yet the inconvenience is not visible till it comes by way of precedent to usher in more It is like an arbitrary power which although by the same reason it take six pence from the subject it may take a hundred pound and then a thousand and then all yet so long as it is within the first bounds the inconvenience is not so great but when it comes to be a precedent or argument for more then the first may justly be complained of as having in it that reason in the principle which brought the inconvenience in the sequel and we have seen very ill consequences from innocent beginnings 34. And the inconveniences which might possibly arise from this precedent those wise Personages also did foresee and therefore although they took liberty in Nice to add some Articles or at least more explicitely to declare the first Creed yet they then would have all the world to rest upon that and go no farther as believing that to be sufficient Saint Athanasius declares their opinion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Faith which the Fathers there confessed was sufficient for the refutation of all impiety and the establishment of all Faith in Christ and true Religion And therefore there was a famous Epistle written by Zeno the Emperour called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Epistle of reconciliation in which all disagreeing interests are entreated to agree in the Nicene Symbol and a promise made upon that condition to communicate with all other Sects adding withal that the Church should never receive any other Symbol than that which was composed by the Nicene Fathers And however Honorius was condemned for a Monothelite yet in one of the Epistles which the sixth Synod alledged against him viz. the second he gave them counsel that would have done the Church as much service as the determination of the Article did for he advised them not to be curious in their disputings nor dogmatical in their determinations about that Question and because the Church was not used to dispute in that Question it were better to preserve the simplicity of Faith than to ensnare mens consciences by a new Article And when the Emperour Constantius was by his Faction engaged in a contrary practice the inconvenience and unreasonableness was so great that a prudent Heathen observed and noted it in this character of Constantius Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem N. B. anili superstitione confudit In quâ scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ gratiùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium 35. And yet men are more led by Example than either by Reason or by Precept for in the Council of Constantinople one Article de novo integro was added viz. I believe one Baptism for the remission of sins and then again they were so confident that that Confession of Faith was so absolutely intire and that no man ever after should need to add any thing to the integrity of Faith that the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus pronounced Anathema to all those that should add any thing to the Creed of Constantinople And yet for all this the Church of Rome in a Synod at Gentilly added the clause of Filioque to the Article of the Procession of the holy Ghost and what they have done since all the World knows Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem All men were perswaded that it was most reasonable the limits of Faith should be no more enlarged but yet they enlarged it themselves and bound others from doing it like an intemperate Father who because he knows he does ill himself enjoyns temperance to his Son but continues to be intemperate himself 36. But now if I should be questioned concerning the Symbol of Athanasius for we see the Nicene Symbol was the Father of many more some twelve or thirteen Symbols in the space of an hundred years I confess I cannot see that moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his Preface and Conclusion as there was in the Nicene Creed Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly unless the Article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained Indeed Athanasius had been soundly vexed on one side and much cryed up on the other and therefore it is not so much wonder for him to be so decretory and severe in his censure for nothing could more ascertain his friends to him and dis-repute his enemies than the belief of that damnatory Appendix but that does not justifie the thing For the Articles themselves I am most heartily perswaded of the truth of them and yet I dare not say all that are not so are irrevocably damn'd because citra hoc Symbolum the Faith of the Apostles Creed is intire and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved that is he that believeth such a belief as is sufficient disposition to be baptized that Faith with the Sacrament is sufficient for heaven Now the Apostles Creed does one why therefore do not both intitle us to the promise Besides if it were considered concerning Athanasius Creed how many people understand it not how contrary to natural reason it seems how little the Scripture says of those curiosities of Explication and how Tradition was not clear on his side for the Article it self much less for those forms and minutes how himself is put to make an answer and excuse for the Fathers speaking in excuse of the Arrians at least so seemingly that the Arrians appealed to them for trial and the offer was declin'd and after all this that the Nicene Creed it self went not so far neither in Article nor Anathema nor Explication it had not been amiss if the final judgment had been left to Jesus Christ for he is appointed Judge of all the World and he shall judge the people righteously for he knows every truth the degree of every necessity and all excuses that do lessen or take away the nature or malice of a crime all which I think Athanasius though a very good man did not know so well as to warrant such a sentence And put case the heresie there condemned be damnable as it is damnable enough yet a man may maintain an opinion that is in it self damnable and yet he not knowing it so and being invincibly led into it may go to heaven his opinion shall burn and himself be saved But however I find no opinion in Scripture called damnable but what are impious in materiâ
practicâ or directly destructive of the Faith or the body of Christianity such of which Saint Peter speaks bringing in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them these are the false Prophets who out of covetousness make merchandise of you through cozening words Such as these are truly heresies and such as these are certainly damnable But because there are no degrees either of truth or falshood every true proposition being alike true that an errour is more or less damnable is not told us in Scripture but is determined by the man and his manners by circumstances and accidents and therefore the censure in the Preface and end are Arguments of his zeal and strength of his perswasion but they are extrinsecal and accidental to the Articles and might as well have been spared And indeed to me it seems very hard to put uncharitableness into the Creed and so to make it become as an Article of Faith though perhaps this very thing was no Faith of Athanasius who if we may believe Aquinas made this manifestation of Faith non per modum Symboli sed per modum doctrinae that is if I understand him right not with a purpose to impose it upon others but with confidence to declare his own belief and that it was prescribed to others as a Creed was the act of the Bishops of Rome so he said nay possibly it was none of his So said the Patriarch of C. P. Meletius about one hundred and thirty years since in his Epistle to John Douza Athanasio falsò adscriptum Symbolum cum Pontificum Rom. appendice illâ adulteratum luce lucidiùs contestamur And it is more than probable that he said true because this Creed was written originally in Latine which in all reason Athanasius did not and it was translated into Greek it being apparent that the Latine Copy is but one but the Greek is various there being three Editions or Translations rather expressed by Genebrard lib. 3. de Trinit But in this particular who list may better satisfie himself in a disputation de Symbolo Athanasii printed at Wertzburg 1590. supposed to be written by Serrarius or Clencherus 37. And yet I must observe that this Symbol of Athanasius and that other of Nice offer not at any new Articles they only pretend to a further Explication of the Articles Apostolical which is a certain confirmation that they did not believe more Articles to be of belief necessary to salvation If they intended these further Explanations to be as necessary as the dogmatical Articles of the Apostles Creed I know not how to answer all that may be objected against that but the advantage that I shall gather from their not proceeding to new matters is laid out ready for me in the words of Athanasius saying of this Creed This is the Catholick Faith and if his authority be good or his saying true or he the Author then no man can say of any other Article that it is a part of the Catholick Faith or that the Catholick Faith can be enlarged beyond the contents of that Symbol and therefore it is a strange boldness in the Church of Rome first to add twelve new Articles and then to add the Appendix of Athanasius to the end of them This is the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved 38. But so great an Example of so excellent a man hath been either mistaken or followed with too much greediness all the World in factions all damning one another each party damn'd by all the rest and there is no disagreeing in opinion from any man that is in love with his own opinion but damnation presently to all that disagree A Ceremony and a Rite hath caused several Churches to Excommunicate each other as in the matter of the Saturday Fast and keeping Easter But what the spirits of men are when they are exasperated in a Question and difference of Religion as they call it though the thing it self may be most inconsiderable is very evident in that request of Pope Innocent the Third desiring of the Greeks but reasonably a man would think that they would not so much hate the Roman manner of consecrating in unleavened bread as to wash and scrape and pare the Altars after a Roman Priest had consecrated Nothing more furious than a mistaken zeal and the actions of a scrupulous and abused conscience When men think every thing to be their Faith and their Religion commonly they are so busie in trifles and such impertinencies in which the scene of their mistake lies that they neglect the greater things of the Law charity and compliances and the gentleness of Christian Communion for this is the great principle of mischief and yet is not more pernicious than unreasonable 39. For I demand Can any man say and justifie that the Apostles did deny Communion to any man that believed the Apostles Creed and lived a good life And dare any man tax that proceeding of remissness and indifferency in Religion And since our blessed Saviour promised salvation to him that believeth and the Apostles when they gave this word the greatest extent enlarged it not beyond the borders of the Creed how can any man warrant the condemning of any man to the flames of Hell that is ready to die in attestation of this Faith so expounded and made explicite by the Apostles and lives accordingly And to this purpose it was excellently said by a wise and a pious Prelate St. Hilary Non per difficiles nos Deus ad beatam vitam quaestiones vocat c. In absoluio nobis facili est aeternitas Jesum suscitatum à mortuis per Deum credere ipsum esse Dominum confiteri c. These are the Articles which we must believe which are the sufficient and adequate object of the Faith which is required of us in order to Salvation And therefore it was that when the Bishops of Istria deserted the Communion of Pope Pelagius in causâ trium Capitulorum He gives them an account of his Faith by recitation of the Creed and by attesting the four General Councils and is confident upon this that de fidei firmitate nulla poterit esse quaestio vel suspicio generari let the Apostles Creed especially so explicated be but secured and all Faith is secured and yet that explication too was less necessary than the Articles themselves for the Explication was but accidental but the Articles even before the Explication were accounted a sufficient inlet to the Kingdome of Heaven 40. And that there was security enough in the simple believing the first Articles is very certain amongst them and by their Principles who allow of an implicite faith to serve most persons to the greatest purposes for if the Creed did contain in it the whole Faith and that other Articles were in it implicitely for such is the doctrine of the School and particularly of Aquinas then he that explicitely believes all the Creed
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